Bluemour Melting Pot XXII

[Robertio]

Can I have the rights to turn this into a movie please?

I can get Keanu Reeves to play SOS.

Got Steven Segal as a back up.

If Keanu Reeves comes as John Wick you won't need back up.

 

[Robertio]

Not sure if its been covered yet but bit of talk of Pickett possibly getting another crack at it next year
Kane cornes tweeted it

Love to have Byron Pickett at Carlton.

 

[HBF]

On Pickett, one of the most talented kids I have seen, has all the attributes of being a dangerous AFL player

But was never committed

After we parted ways, WC were prepared to offer him a spot, was told, well in advance, when preseason was starting, turned up 10 KG overweight

If he rocks up to the any trial, in the best condition of his life(not so much in terms of fitness, more to do with skin folds/weight), then if he shows he really wants it, I would give him a rookie spot

Same. I thought at the time this kid could be anything. Just a shame he didn't have the right attitude to make it at the highest level.

 

[juzz88]

If we model our list management based on how the Japanese (who are undoubtedly shrewd investors) purchase umbrellas, we can see that price is the predominate factor when deciding whether or not to purchase.

Japan: umbrella purchasing decisions 2018 | Statista

This statistic illustrates the results of a survey conducted in April 2018 about the main factors umbrella purchasing decisions are based on in Japan.

www.statista.com

Therefore, I believe our position on Papley is pretty clear cut.

The numbers don't lie, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[smashbox gill]

Dean Solomon contract not being extended at the Suns due to falling out with Dew.

Would be a great senior assistant to Teague imo

 

[Arr0w]

Dean Solomon contract not being extended at the Suns due to falling out with Dew.

Would be a great senior assistant to Teague imo

There is only a year or so between them

 

[DangerousD]

I've seen the Cornes rumour and I believe he specifically mentioned they think the Eddie Betts impact may be what gets Pickett right.

Open to be corrected but I think Cornes said something like we're planning on giving him a 10 day trial in the off-season to see how he's going, with the club quietly believing Eddies influence will make it pay off this time around.

There is no such thing as a 10 day trial though is there? He might present to the club for 10 days but o he physically fit and ready to present for those 10 days will take months.

People seem to forget that this would be his 4th chance/lifeline in AFL after being linked to WC, he once again presented unfit.

 

[DangerousD]

Dean Solomon contract not being extended at the Suns due to falling out with Dew.

Would be a great senior assistant to Teague imo

Not, not being renewed, sacked with 2 years to run

 

[Coops93]

There is no such thing as a 10 day trial though is there? He might present to the club for 10 days but o he physically fit and ready to present for those 10 days will take months.

People seem to forget that this would be his 4th chance/lifeline in AFL after being linked to WC, he once again presented unfit.

I dunno mate that's just what Kane Cornes said. I doubt it would be any different to any other years where potential rookie recruits train with the team for a little while.

I don't think it's been forgotten, it's been brought up several times in this thread.

 

[AT97]

does Kane cornes get any of the rumour stuff right?

 

[Tjblues]

I’d want to see far more than 10 days of Pickett before we gave him another contract.

Anyone can be committed for 10 days, even 10 weeks. To go from such a long history of poor effort to a completely changed man is unlikely.

Far more likely we end up with egg on our face for giving a bloke his 4th(?) chance than him turning out to be the superstar we hoped he would be.

Happy to throw my support behind him should he rejoin but I’d rather us keep the blokes we’ve got right now

 

[DangerousD]

I dunno mate that's just what Kane Cornes said. I doubt it would be any different to any other years where potential rookie recruits train with the team for a little while.

I don't think it's been forgotten, it's been brought up several times in this thread.

More than happy to select him if he has turned the corner. The fact he isn’t playing any football at all makes it seem far fetched.

 

[Coops93]

More than happy to select him if he has turned the corner. The fact he isn’t playing any football at all makes it seem far fetched.

Yeah I thought he was playing WAFL at least, surprised to hear we're interested considering he isn't

 

[Magruder]

Prestia was averaging mid 20 disposals in his last 4 years at GC, he was a proven ball winner but had injury issues

A total value of a pick in the 7-10 range is more than enough for Papley, who is predominantly a small forward only

Just think if we target a Neale type and we are able to use Martin more often as a forward

That makes us way more dangerous

Agree with your view that our first this year should be ample. However I would be prepared to enter into minor pick upgrades if we needed to. ( our third for their fourth type thing ) if that’s what was necessary.


Avoiding the optics of last year is important.
(Even if the eventual outcomes were OK)

Sure it holds water, just turn the umbrella upside down!

But regardless of how much you needed it, if you paid $200 for a $15 umbrella then you overpaid.

If GWS is desperate for a reliable ruckman who can be around for several years - and if they’re not they should be - and go and trade a couple of firsts for Preuss, then they well and truly overpaid.

The need doesn’t negate the price. It can be used to justify (to a degree) the cost, but it doesn’t remove it from the equation.

Your view is valid in that it is rooted in the narrow concept of absolute value, that the umbrella is intrinsically worth $15.

Any argument that its market value is $15 is outflanked by the idea thAt someone will pay $20 or $50 or $200.

Your view is further imperiled by the realisation that, unlike the market for umbrellas which enjoys something approaching a competitive market, trade in AFL talent is what we may euphemistically describe as imperfect.

Returning to the concept of relative value. Staying dry may be more important to one purchaser than the $185 price difference you describe.

You may say I paid too much, I may say you got too wet.
You may say I paid too much for an umbrella, I may say I didn’t ruin my $300 shoes, $1500 suit etc.

All relative.

 

[Magruder]

Yes. Because draft picks aren't worth as much this year with lots of top draftees tied to clubs and recruiters barely even getting to watch the draftees play this year.

Simply stating 2 x mid first rounders is quite narrow mind to be honest and doesn't look at the full picture.

And who says that's the deal, we might get a second rounder or something back as well.

Like most of his positions, it allows for facts to be retrofitted so that he is the ultimate arbiter

 

[Feva]

No thanks to Pickett.

Too long out of the game now and his efforts at 3 x AFL clubs show his lack of commitment. Let another club take the risk on him and I wish him well.

 

[Eiffel 65]

Sorry, but I can't agree that someone who has played only 5 games is having a better year than the guys I have listed below (besides Dunkley/Hunter). So based on the AFL stat data you take Prestia ahead of the following players?

1. Dunkley.
2. Petrecca.
3. Merrett.
4. Yeo.
5. Parker.
6. Boak.
7. Hawkins.
8. Jack Steele.
9. McCluggage.
10. Lachie Hunter.
11. Mitch Duncan.



Yes that is correct. You answered my validity of AFL stats. These ratings do not paint a picture of a players skill set or what the player is going through or team in general. What is to say that Papley won't have a better AFL rating in a better side compare to a rebuild Sydney are going through.

Here is another one.

Papley is currently rated 373.3 ratings.
Cameron is currently rated 341.8 ratings.

Which you one would you take between Papley or Cameron? Based on your commentary you would take Papley ahead of Cameron.

Here I can justify why Papley's rating has not risen in the past 3 years.

2017 Season
Swan I50's differential - +2.7 (https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_team_rankings?year=2017&type=DA&sby=20)
Papley's rating - 345.2

2018 Season
Swan I50's differential - -5.7 (https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_team_rankings?year=2018&type=DA&sby=20)
Papley's rating - 371.5

2019 Season - - 8.7 (https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_team_rankings?year=2019&type=DA&sby=20)
Papley's rating - -372.6

Based on the data I have collected, I would say I am impressed that Papley's rating has remain the same given that there has been less supply of I50's in which case you have stated that the AFL ratings measures "pressure acts, disposal efficiency, inside 50's, rebound 50's, score involvements".

Less i50's = Less pressure acts, inside 50's and score involvements which are a big part of a small forward gamestyle.

First of all, thank you for providing a quality post backing up your points with data. It's far more enjoyable to read than someone responding by saying we'll sack Teague if we don't get Papley.

I'm going to finish up my Papley debate on this post, so I'll try to clarify a few things because I can already see where this discussion is heading. The debate has comprehensively been covered over the past week in List Management and Bluemour theads.

Statistics show that when Prestia has been on the park this year, his average across the combined sum of all statistics for the games he's played ranks him in the top 14 players in the competition. Thanks for pointing that out. Context is important. Yes, he's missed half the games this year, but when on he's been on the park, statistically he's ranked in the top 14 players in the competition.

You pick the best talent available, but you also need to consider what your list needs. So for Carlton, Prestia wouldn't be my first choice from the list you provided. So no, I wouldn't pick him given the current makeup of our list. In no particular order, I would chose one of Merrett, McCluggage, Duncan or Petracca. The others don't really suit our needs. Prestia would then come into consideration for Carlton.

Yes, Papley has rated higher than Cameron this season. The reason being Papley did not play as a small forward in the first half of the year. With Franklin, Reid, Heeney and McCartin all injured at different stages this season, Sydney were using Papley as a focal point (pseudo key forward) and directing most of their inside 50 entries to him. So naturally with more supply, his output would be greater.

The circumstances behind Papley's output have been discussed with respect to the following contexts:

• With Harry, Charlie and Mitch being our focal points, will Papley's output increase or decrease with less supply but also less attention from the opposition defense.
• The different types of small forwards and whether Papley is the right one for us. E.g. crumbing, marking or one who plays further up the ground.
• How he gets his goals and his attitude.

The discussion further leads to whether it's actually worth pursuing Papley given his trade value will be at its highest right now. Could we find a suitable role player and use our assets on someone else I.e. Josh Kelly.

There are strong arguments for and against. If there's something new you'd like to bring up, post your thoughts and it might reignite the conversation again.

 

[Eiffel 65]

Or give them to option to match bids, that will keep them running the academies to help develop these kids, but when they match there is no points discount and perhaps further tighten the regulations around picks used to match and maybe remove the option to go into a points deficit next year.

That way they're paying market value and other clubs would be more likely to bid on those players, knowing that they're a real chance to get them instead of the linked club saying 'nah, we'll take him for a 3rd, a 4th and wipe a few points of our fututure 1st". They'd have to plan around where the kids will go, and have appropriate means to get them. ie Tom Green going to fall in the 3-6 range, GWS have to have the ability to pay the equivalent of 3-6 (and not with an handful of bull**** later picks to accumulate points), like they'd need a top 10 pick plus a second to add or something (make the points match work with legitimate good picks).

Really like that suggestion.

In the 2019 draft, Fremantle matched their bid for Henry with junk picks. Think it was something like 3 or 4 picks beyond 50.

That's ridiculous for a player other clubs rate in the top 10.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Can I have the rights to turn this into a movie please?

I can get Keanu Reeves to play SOS.

Got Steven Seagal to play Paul Brodie.

EFA

 

[The Dominator7]

Mmm...I did some musings on Pickett, as head 1 says “he’s had his shot and with GWS, us and then a pre-season stint with WCE, he has continued to show he is not cut out for life as a professional footballer”...but head 2 says “man he has all the tools and IF the penny has dropped, under Ed’s guidance why not take a shot.”

I think I’m siding with head 2 because we are in a position to make an educated call - we’d have all his original performance data, AR would be able to set a program (even this far out) and collect progress data + we’d be able to get him to train with us over the whole pre-season with the carrot of a supplementary list selection if he stays on track - it’s the best part of that new approach, we don’t have to make a call at draft time, we can wait till March (or whenever it may be in 2021)...we don’t commit if he doesn’t and we lose absolutely nothing by giving him a shot.

Still can’t see it happening but I’d love it to.

EDIT: Subject to any list size and any rookie/supplementary rule changes which we have no idea on yet

 

[Robertio]

Mmm...I did some musings on Pickett, as head 1 says “he’s had his shot and with GWS, us and then a pre-season stint with WCE, he has continued to show he is not cut out for life as a professional footballer”...but head 2 says “man he has all the tools and IF the penny has dropped, under Ed’s guidance why not take a shot.”

I think I’m siding with head 2 because we are in a position to make an educated call - we’d have all his original performance data, AR would be able to set a program (even this far out) and collect progress data + we’d be able to get him to train with us over the whole pre-season with the carrot of a supplementary list selection if he stays on track - it’s the best part of that new approach, we don’t have to make a call at draft time, we can wait till March (or whenever it may be in 2021)...we don’t commit if he doesn’t and we lose absolutely nothing by giving him a shot.

Still can’t see it happening but I’d love it to.

EDIT: Subject to any list size and any rookie/supplementary rule changes which we have no idea on yet

I'm going with head 1.

 

[mochacinolatte]

First of all, thank you for providing a quality post backing up your points with data. It's far more enjoyable to read than someone responding by saying we'll sack Teague if we don't get Papley.

I'm going to finish up my Papley debate on this post, so I'll try to clarify a few things because I can already see where this discussion is heading. The debate has comprehensively been covered over the past week in List Management and Bluemour theads.

Statistics show that when Prestia has been on the park this year, his average across the combined sum of all statistics for the games he's played ranks him in the top 14 players in the competition. Thanks for pointing that out. Context is important. Yes, he's missed half the games this year, but when on he's been on the park, statistically he's ranked in the top 14 players in the competition.

This is the point I am trying to come across, you used the AFL data list provided as a fact that Prestia is 'better' than Papley. However as noted in my previous post and the quote here, there are some inconsitency when the data list ranks a player. I am not here to argue whether Prestia is better than Papley, I am just noting that using the evidence you provided has its flaws.

You pick the best talent available, but you also need to consider what your list needs. So for Carlton, Prestia wouldn't be my first choice from the list you provided. So no, I wouldn't pick him given the current makeup of our list. In no particular order, I would chose one of Merrett, McCluggage, Duncan or Petracca. The others don't really suit our needs. Prestia would then come into consideration for Carlton.

Yes you build a list through draft and trading to list requirements, so comparing Prestia to Papley should not have been compared as these 2 players fill different roles. One is a inside mid other is a small forward.

Yes, Papley has rated higher than Cameron this season. The reason being Papley did not play as a small forward in the first half of the year. With Franklin, Reid, Heeney and McCartin all injured at different stages this season, Sydney were using Papley as a focal point (pseudo key forward) and directing most of their inside 50 entries to him. So naturally with more supply, his output would be greater.

As stated before, inconsitency in the AFL data which can be easily skewed to fit any argument. I can still argue that just looking at these data points. Papley is a better player than Cameron. If you can acknowledge their is a system flaw, you can't really use that as a factual evidence.

The circumstances behind Papley's output have been discussed with respect to the following contexts:

• With Harry, Charlie and Mitch being our focal points, will Papley's output increase or decrease with less supply but also less attention from the opposition defense.
• The different types of small forwards and whether Papley is the right one for us. E.g. crumbing, marking of one who plays further up the ground.
• How he gets his goals and his attitude.

Ought to be careful with these claims.

I can claim since Sydney have no key forwards their forward structure is broken. e.g. If there are no Key Fowards to make a contest how will be able to be front and centre and crumb to kick a goal eliminating a part of his game? How can you be confident that Harry, Charlie and Mitch are going to mark every single inside 50 entry? Yes they will be our focal point, but doesn't mean they will mark everything.

Yes I have read the article Teague don't like atagnoizes players, unless you get word from his mouth he does not want Papley. You can't claim is a fact that Teague does not want Papley.

The discussion further leads to whether it's actually worth pursuing Papley given his trade value will be at its highest right now. Could we find a suitable role player and use our assets on someone else I.e. Josh Kelly.

There are strong arguments for and against. If there's something new you'd like to bring up, post your thoughts and it might reignite the conversation again.

A lot of assumptions here. Unless you are the recruiter for CFC or Sydney, no one know what is being offered. Therefore dismissing Papley as a trade option and out of dicussion is counter intuitive in this forum. Why don't you give a list of small forwards that can do a better role than Papley?

 

[katmanblue]

Martin's contract is arranged so that some of his 2022/3/4 salary is shuffled to this year, inflating it to over a million.

If you were a fringe player on a front ended contract of 200K this year and 50K next year (averaging 125K a year) and took a 50% cut this year, you'd be losing 100K.
Someone else with the same valued contract but back loaded would lose 25K.
You don't think that's unfair?

Is it fair if you front load a player and they get a career ending injury or ask for a trade (ala Gibbs) so you have paid more for them in the first couple of years than what their average salary would be?

Or if the player's contract is back-loaded and gets injured before they can fullfill the contract and they are getting less for the first part of their contract than they would have on average. Is that fair? Or do these players with back-ended contracts have to pay a higher percentage this year just because they have a higher average income than what it is for this year?

It's just the way the industry works. There is inherent risk in football. Why should one player get different terms to the hundreds of others? How is that fair?

A player on 200k would be getting paid 141k and change for the year. 59k is not 100k.

It's not 50%. The first 5 months had already been paid in full. It's 50% of the remaining 7months.



On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[katmanblue]

Poty

Did I do it right?

I's learnin gud.

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[katmanblue]

I'm reading through it now. Looks like I missed an epic pissing contest last night.

They said it was raining. I couldn't afford the umbrella though and my cheapy broke.

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app