Bluemour Discussion Thread IV

[Blue__Balls]

Assorted comments

In terms of the change for the Kelly trade, anything between Pick 20 and 25 would probably do the job, depending on what picks a club has available. The closer to Pick 20 it is the more likely you'd be to get something else back from GWS (ie. third rounder). Picks 3 and 20 for Kelly and a third, Or Picks 3 and 25 for Kelly alone.

The end result of the Treloar trade valued him at around Pick 2-3. If the future pick had been what both clubs expected (we'll call it 12) it would have valued him at Pick 3-4. Ergo, Pick 3 plus an early second would value Kelly significantly higher than Treloar.

Don't discount the "AFL's discretion" shenanigans that go on with compensation picks. Frawley should never have gotten Melbourne a Band 1 compensation pick, but the AFL determined that his value to the team was much higher than his new contract indicated. Vickery, Wells and Mayne all generated Band 3 compensation last year, and only Nathan Brown failed to return any compensation (signing a 2-year deal with Collingwood). If we finish bottom 3 and lose our only senior key forward, who also happens to be leading our goal-kicking tally, then a 3-year deal that is anywhere close to the Band 3 trigger point will be nudged over the line.

 

[Forty3]

would you rather trade curnow then?

I would rather we keep faith in what is known. I would not trade any of our under 23's for him. Well at least none of the ones that GWS would consider.
We have had a couple of really good drafts, let's rejoice in that and enjoy the fruits of it.
To obtain Kelly I am aware it will require 2 first round picks, or the equivalent of. So if Gibbs leaves I would bundle that pick with our first from this year.
If he doesn't leave, I would look at trading our first from next year to a mid table club for there first from this year and next. With later picks to even it out. Knowing that a high pick in a super draft might be well wanted.
Then use our first from this year, and one of the other two for Kelly.

 

[Arr0w]

In terms of the change for the Kelly trade, anything between Pick 20 and 25 would probably do the job, depending on what picks a club has available. The closer to Pick 20 it is the more likely you'd be to get something else back from GWS (ie. third rounder). Picks 3 and 20 for Kelly and a third, Or Picks 3 and 25 for Kelly alone.

The end result of the Treloar trade valued him at around Pick 2-3. If the future pick had been what both clubs expected (we'll call it 12) it would have valued him at Pick 3-4. Ergo, Pick 3 plus an early second would value Kelly significantly higher than Treloar.

Don't discount the "AFL's discretion" shenanigans that go on with compensation picks. Frawley should never have gotten Melbourne a Band 1 compensation pick, but the AFL determined that his value to the team was much higher than his new contract indicated. Vickery, Wells and Mayne all generated Band 3 compensation last year, and only Nathan Brown failed to return any compensation (signing a 2-year deal with Collingwood). If we finish bottom 3 and lose our only senior key forward, who also happens to be leading our goal-kicking tally, then a 3-year deal that is anywhere close to the Band 3 trigger point will be nudged over the line.

Appreciate your thoughts, time will tell

 

[Weiterbot23]

Agree. Everyone calm the farm.

Gibbs is worth two first rounders (according to some) yet Kelly can be done for a first.

No. For starters, Treloar cost two firsts and change.

Hopper is worth a first alone. Same with Whitfield. Kelly two firsts at minimum.

Kelly will cost too much. Swapping the Gibbs pick for Hopper and change (Griffin salary dump) would be a fantastic result.

You understand that not all first round picks hold the same value? Eg pick 1 holds more value than pick 18.

Most are suggesting Kelly for a top 3 pick, Kelly is uncontracted also which lessens his trade value.

The belief of Gibbs being worth 2 first rounders is due to Adelaide being on top hence having pick 18 (possibly later with compo picks etc) and a likely top 4 finish the following season. Gibbs also has 2 years to run on his contract which increases his value, Adelaide are 1 mid away from a premiership and it's rare that anyone would actually want to live in Adelaide.


Also Treloar did not cost 2 first rounders and change, Collingwood got a second rounder back, plus Collingwood were projected to be a lot better than they were he following season.

 

[DangerousD]

Maybe people are still burnt by the Judd deal. The issue wasn't what we gave up for Judd it was what happened around his recruitment. Poor List Management, Stupid contracts and very poor drafting is what killed us.

Getting a big fish like Kelly shouldn't really restrict us. It should make us better. You can still build a list with later picks and smart recruiting. There was a stat the other day that the Swans entire defence is made up of rookies!!! It can be done

Couldn't agree more

 

[Cripps17]

People are really undervaluing the value of a top 3 pick, which is what we'll end up with.

People keep citing Treloar as two first rounders - the Pies took a gamble that the future unknown pick would be 10+ and they also got #28 back.

Treloar + #28 vs #7 + #10 (anticipated) is a reasonable deal, and not at all in the ballpark of Kelly vs #3 + #20.

Pick 3 alone is enough - even moreso in a shallow draft. There's a reason top picks aren't shipped around for lower combinations. If GWS want to baulk at that for the sake of #20, good luck to them and Kelly - we'd hardly be acting unreasonable.

 

[therubbernub]

Need elite, depth will come through churn over time.

Can't win the big dance with only foot soldiers.

Agree, but there is a balance. How many elite?

 

[Gethelred]

Weitering & Charlie are off the trade table full stop, along with Cripps.
These are the guys we are building our next premiership tilt around.
Ends.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Beyond disagreeing with the concept that anyone is off the table for the right price - you really telling me that, in the event that a club got pick 1 and 2, you'd refuse a trade for Cripps or Weitering? - I really wish people would stop trading Weitering because he isn't the best FB in history yet.

 

[G-TRAIN07]

I would trade Weitering for kelly and hopper, No way would we trade Charlie

 

[Iamcarlton]

I wouldn't even contemplate trading any of our young talent UNLESS they specifically asked for it and really wanted out. (which I can't see happening)

Im not so sure we have a plethora of tall young backman that long term are not all going to fit into the side . Once you take into account that we will be including more midfielders into the side over the next couple of years spots in the side will be harder to get and something may give imo . For instance if Jones continues his amazing form next year and Marchbank and Plowman continue their good form whilst Weitering struggles again and Macreadie struggles to get a game . There may be a distinct possibility 1 is moved on ? .
And i wouldnt necessarily just be looking at the older Jones as the one if he continued on in the same form next year . Things can change quickly .

 

[Gingerbread man]

I would rather we keep faith in what is known. I would not trade any of our under 23's for him. Well at least none of the ones that GWS would consider.
We have had a couple of really good drafts, let's rejoice in that and enjoy the fruits of it.
To obtain Kelly I am aware it will require 2 first round picks, or the equivalent of. So if Gibbs leaves I would bundle that pick with our first from this year.
If he doesn't leave, I would look at trading our first from next year to a mid table club for there first from this year and next. With later picks to even it out. Knowing that a high pick in a super draft might be well wanted.
Then use our first from this year, and one of the other two for Kelly.

sorry that curnow comment was a bit tongue in cheek.
There is a lot that I agree with in your last comment regarding weitering but the way I am looking at is that we should hold onto our first round picks this year and next year and the easiest way to do that is to use weitering.
But let's be real and I know this contradicts Everything that I have stated, the main reason I would not trade weitering is because of what it would do to the culture of our club, we would be throwing away 2 years of hard work to get the club back on the right track.

 

[teagueyubeauty]

Don't trade any of the young backman, trade the older ones....come on down Beast.

ASOS and Rowe kept, firstly because they wouldn't get us much and secondly as backfill for poor form/injury and thirdly to lead the NB to the promised land.

 

[kjr8]

So you would rather trade a potential elite player, for a potential upgraded elite player. I really don't care what path we take to reach our destination, but if he did that, we would be waiting a long time to win a flag

that's not the point he was making.

 

[therubbernub]

To Kelly or not to Kelly- that is the question, and the answer is that it depends.
It depends on our midfield depth. And the problem is that it is hard to answer that question now. Assessing our midfield currently is like trying to juggle snakes. We have a lot of moving parts that keep changing. Kelly should be chased if it seems like our depth is good. if not perhaps Kelly is not the answer until our midfield depth improves.
If we had a mature midfield that we knew were a known quantity then that would be different. Instead we have the following

1 Certain: Cripps
2 Uncertain : Gibbs (does he stay?)
3 Uncertain : Murphy (injuries starting to stack up- how long does he play for?)
4 Certain : Ed -
5 Uncertain : Cuningham (how good is he? Too early to tell)
6 Uncertain : SPS ( shows amazing glimpses- but how good is he really)
7 Uncertain : Zac (showing very good signs- but he is small. Needs more development)
8 Uncertain ; Charlie ( could be played in the midfield. But is he wanted forward more?)*
9 Uncertain : Polson

* Charlie forward or Mid? If he shows as much ability playing in the midfield as he does forward, do we get better value by playing him as a mid? Midfield is where we need the depth. If we have charlie dominating in the midfield then it would be more important that we retain Levi. Levi getting silver service from a much deeper talented midfield (consisting of Cripps, Gibbs, Murph, Kelly, Charlie plus others) could see Levi's output go through the roof- particularly if harry comes on - much more likely after his display against brisbane in his first game.
The thing is, we have Levi. We dont have to offer anything except meet the market money wise. So if Charlie's loss from the forward line to the midfield can be covered by not losing Levi then we can have our Kelly and Charlie in the midfield (potentially 2 elite midfield additions) and still have a forward line that is dangerous. When i say "dangerous" part of me wants laugh out loud -when I consider the lack of potency of our forward line this year. But the other part of me says- "yes but our forwards havent had Kelly/Charlie/Cripps/Gibbs/Murphy feeding them". For mine, it would be well worth the experiment for the remainder of 2017, to see how charlie goes in the midfield . He now has the confidence that was lacking at the start of the year. With his new found playing level , hopefully translating to the midfield , charlie could be the missing piece of the jigsaw- one which should give us the confidence to go after Kelly and rely on the natural development of the younger players. If the experiment works and we get Kelly, then next year could see us shoot up the ladder to potentially play finals. The following year in 2019, the further development of our midfield could see us challenging for top 4

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Williamson would have to be earmarked for a midfielders role wouldn't he??

 

[Cripps17]

Im not so sure we have a plethora of tall young backman that long term are not all going to fit into the side . Once you take into account that we will be including more midfielders into the side over the next couple of years spots in the side will be harder to get and something may give imo

Macreadie has been the only non regular yet he has still been given opportunity despite being a first year player in a team supposedly stacked with key backs.

There will always be injuries, specific match ups or maybe we benefit from having the luxury to rotate, rest and manage our talls. At the very least we wait to see who suits and benefits us best long term before jumping the gun.

 

[Iamcarlton]

Macreadie has been the only non regular yet he has still been given opportunity despite being a first year player in a team supposedly stacked with key backs.

There will always be injuries, specific match ups or maybe we benefit from having the luxury to rotate, rest and manage our talls. At the very least we wait to see who suits and benefits us best long term before jumping the gun.

Agree entirely its fantastic having options in key positions which is something weve rarely had . Just highlighting that things can change quickly and i firmly believe that the major reason weve been playing so many talls in particular down back is because our midfield lacks depth . And we'd rather get games into players like Macreadie than play the likes of Palmer Smedts and earlier Kerridge in the midfield . Once that changes and it will spots in the side will be harder to get and hence we have a scenario such as the Tuohy case where a player gets squeezed out that we may not necessarily want to lose but its still done .

 

[Forty3]

sorry that curnow comment was a bit tongue in cheek.
There is a lot that I agree with in your last comment regarding weitering but the way I am looking at is that we should hold onto our first round picks this year and next year and the easiest way to do that is to use weitering.
But let's be real and I know this contradicts Everything that I have stated, the main reason I would not trade weitering is because of what it would do to the culture of our club, we would be throwing away 2 years of hard work to get the club back on the right track.

I can see your thinking, but it always confuses me why people rate the potential of a first round selection in the future higher than a first round selection taken in the recent past.
If JW was in this years draft he would go number 1, without a doubt. If Josh Kelly was in this years draft, he would go number 1, without a doubt.

 

[Arr0w]

that's not the point he was making.

I realise that, but had a lot of if's" and you know what I was eluding to as well

 

[Neadsy83]

To Kelly or not to Kelly- that is the question, and the answer is that it depends.
It depends on our midfield depth. And the problem is that it is hard to answer that question now. Assessing our midfield currently is like trying to juggle snakes. We have a lot of moving parts that keep changing. Kelly should be chased if it seems like our depth is good. if not perhaps Kelly is not the answer until our midfield depth improves.
If we had a mature midfield that we knew were a known quantity then that would be different. Instead we have the following

1 Certain: Cripps
2 Uncertain : Gibbs (does he stay?)
3 Uncertain : Murphy (injuries starting to stack up- how long does he play for?)
4 Certain : Ed -
5 Uncertain : Cuningham (how good is he? Too early to tell)
6 Uncertain : SPS ( shows amazing glimpses- but how good is he really)
7 Uncertain : Zac (showing very good signs- but he is small. Needs more development)
8 Uncertain ; Charlie ( could be played in the midfield. But is he wanted forward more?)*
9 Uncertain : Polson

* Charlie forward or Mid? If he shows as much ability playing in the midfield as he does forward, do we get better value by playing him as a mid? Midfield is where we need the depth. If we have charlie dominating in the midfield then it would be more important that we retain Levi. Levi getting silver service from a much deeper talented midfield (consisting of Cripps, Gibbs, Murph, Kelly, Charlie plus others) could see Levi's output go through the roof- particularly if harry comes on - much more likely after his display against brisbane in his first game.
The thing is, we have Levi. We dont have to offer anything except meet the market money wise. So if Charlie's loss from the forward line to the midfield can be covered by not losing Levi then we can have our Kelly and Charlie in the midfield (potentially 2 elite midfield additions) and still have a forward line that is dangerous. When i say "dangerous" part of me wants laugh out loud -when I consider the lack of potency of our forward line this year. But the other part of me says- "yes but our forwards havent had Kelly/Charlie/Cripps/Gibbs/Murphy feeding them". For mine, it would be well worth the experiment for the remainder of 2017, to see how charlie goes in the midfield . He now has the confidence that was lacking at the start of the year. With his new found playing level , hopefully translating to the midfield , charlie could be the missing piece of the jigsaw- one which should give us the confidence to go after Kelly and rely on the natural development of the younger players. If the experiment works and we get Kelly, then next year could see us shoot up the ladder to potentially play finals. The following year in 2019, the further development of our midfield could see us challenging for top 4

I highly doubt we will win a flag with Levi at FF, i'd prefer to leave Charlie where he is and draft young mids, for example we take Cerra this year, trade for Balic or Hopper, Walsh next and also trade our 2019 1st for Whitfield, then target Shiel as an F/A in 2019 to go with Cripps, SPS, Cunners. Also Docherty can spend the majority of time in midfield or Byrne.

Otherwise we need to draft a key forward this year and will be two years behind in his development compared to Charlie and may not be of the same quality. The only guy available is Brander.. I'm not sure he has what Curnow does!

 

[pressurepoint]

People are really undervaluing the value of a top 3 pick, which is what we'll end up with.

People keep citing Treloar as two first rounders - the Pies took a gamble that the future unknown pick would be 10+ and they also got #28 back.

Treloar + #28 vs #7 + #10 (anticipated) is a reasonable deal, and not at all in the ballpark of Kelly vs #3 + #20.

Pick 3 alone is enough - even moreso in a shallow draft. There's a reason top picks aren't shipped around for lower combinations. If GWS want to baulk at that for the sake of #20, good luck to them and Kelly - we'd hardly be acting unreasonable.

Pick 3 will not be enough for Kelly alone, let alone a package deal. It will only suffice if GWS has a player picked out that they desperately want at that pick (e.g. Gold Coast's trades that landed O'Meara). If there is no such player at #3, he will cost two firsts at minimum.

Kelly does not suit our strategy, being: to build a large core group of players all at the same age which can contend. Yes, he is at the age of our new core. But taking Kelly will strip us of a number of picks (likely picks from this year and next) that will allow us to build a depth of players to form that core group.

Getting Hopper better suits us - if it means that the Gibbs pick is traded out for him. It would be a like-for-like swap but what we get in return suits our objective of building a core group of players at the same age.

Shiel (who has said he wants to play his remaining days at Carlton) is our Kelly-like acquisition in a few years time, but via free agency. Every Carlton supporter should be barracking for GWS this finals series for this reason. If they win it, there will be a GWS firesale.

 

[Jeremias]

Williamson would have to be earmarked for a midfielders role wouldn't he??

Yep, I reckon there's every chance we'll see this eventuate over the next couple of years.

Reminds me of a young Scott Pendlebury. If he can develop into half the player Pendles has become, we'll have done very well.

 

[Soapy V]

Williamson would have to be earmarked for a midfielders role wouldn't he??

Possibly but that poise and ball use from defence is a real weapon

 

[Heres Waite]

Pick 3 will not be enough for Kelly alone, let alone a package deal. It will only suffice if GWS has a player picked out that they desperately want at that pick (e.g. Gold Coast's trades that landed O'Meara). If there is no such player at #3, he will cost two firsts at minimum.

Kelly does not suit our strategy, being: to build a large core group of players all at the same age which can contend. Yes, he is at the age of our new core. But taking Kelly will strip us of a number of picks (likely picks from this year and next) that will allow us to build a depth of players to form that core group.

Getting Hopper better suits us - if it means that the Gibbs pick is traded out for him. It would be a like-for-like swap but what we get in return suits our objective of building a core group of players at the same age.

Shiel (who has said he wants to play his remaining days at Carlton) is our Kelly-like acquisition in a few years time, but via free agency. Every Carlton supporter should be barracking for GWS this finals series for this reason. If they win it, there will be a GWS firesale.

Really??? Where did he say that?

 

[Heres Waite]

Talk of trading Weitering/Curnow ... madness!!

There's no chance we would do that!! I don't understand why we would even want to when we can use draft picks!