List Mgmt. Carlton's 2019 Draft Thread

[swuzzlebubble]

The thing with trade down scenarios is that we really want the other team coming to us because they're keen on someone at our pick. That's how we get 'overs' out of it.
If we're shopping it around we're not getting the same deals.

Another thing with trading down is you've really got to target a range / play the percentages rather than target a specific guy.
Eg going from say 9 to 15 you've got to say OK we've got 5 guys we'd be happy with at 15 so we'll back ourselves at least one of them are there. Target a specific guy and he could be gone next pick.

 

[Mr_Plow]

Isn't every draft pick a chance to develop into a Rance or Fyfe or Cripps?

If one thinks that some players have higher ceilings than others, fair enough. But one makes it seem that selecting a guy with a stronger U18s pedigree and better fit for the current list is ignoring best available?

What even is best available? The margins between these kids at the top is miniscule at best, particularly this year.

 

[GT619]

Filling short term needs through the draft, especially 1st rounder 18 year olds? No thanks

You don't pass up a chance to draft a future Fyfe, Rance, etc

Take best available, trade for needs

Who do you think we should draft. Which way do see sos going

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Isn't every draft pick a chance to develop into a Rance or Fyfe or Cripps?

If one thinks that some players have higher ceilings than others, fair enough. But one makes it seem that selecting a guy with a stronger U18s pedigree and better fit for the current list is ignoring best available?

What even is best available? The margins between these kids at the top is miniscule at best, particularly this year.

Yes I read 'best available' to be a ranking of perceived pure talent.
As opposed to 'best fit for us at this point in time'.

 

[HARKER]

Isn't every draft pick a chance to develop into a Rance or Fyfe or Cripps?
If one thinks that some players have higher ceilings than others, fair enough. But one makes it seem that selecting a guy with a stronger U18s pedigree and better fit for the current list is ignoring best available?
What even is best available? The margins between these kids at the top is miniscule at best, particularly this year.

It means different things to different people.

Recruiters hang their hat on 'finding' the next champion and that's perfectly fine.
It's also wise (very wise) to then have a List Manager make the final call on the player taking the list as a whole, into account.
I think it has to be that way and the smarter we get, the better we'll get.

I don't understand what GWS have done in the last couple of years. I didn't before and I certainly don't know now.
Yes, they took the best available but for what end result? What will Bonar, Caldwell, O'Hallaran and Hately achieve for them when the types they really needed were in the frame for selection by them? They now have Green coming on board. Bonar has already been given away for nothing and one of the 2017 guys will likely seek opportunity elsewhere because it may not be there for them at GWS. Why didn't they take Higgins, Richards, Clark, Duursma, or Sturt - Players that made for the better fit given their list profile and players that had a chance of making it into their best team?

It's about winning games of football and not just about trying to find the next Brownlow Medallist

 

[Eiffel 65]

Short term needs? How do you mean short term?
If you've found a player you want, that's who you take and if he's good enough he spends the next 12 years on your list.

Trade for needs? That worked well for us this year.
Maybe we can put all our eggs in the Whitfield and Papley (again) basket next year. There always...always...has to be more than one way to skin a cat.

You're going to see more and more off it Arrow, so best get used to it and it's always funny to me how clubs so often end up with types they need.
What would you say if Melbourne did take Jackson & Pickett with their first two picks? They took best available?

A chance to draft Fyfe or Rance... a chance?
Why isn't Pickett a chance to become a Betts or Rioli?

In fairness, Papley was labelled as a 'big fish' so he can't be classified purely as trading for needs.

Nic Newman is an example of trading for needs. These sorts of trades can be facilitated, but I'm not 100% convinced SOS have been chasing these types of role players very hard. Either that or he was genuinely hoping some of the delisted GWS recruits would come good.

There's nothing wrong with drafting Pickett, but there are clearly others that have been more consistent and had a bigger impact over a longer period of time. He has X-factor, but you need to remember he's shorter than Eddie Betts and not as quick as Rioli, so there will be question marks as to whether his game will stack up at the top level.

Looking at other prospects, Young has a damaging left boot, extremely agile (7.94 secs at combine) and a great intercept mark. Serong has the capacity to win his own ball in the midfield and played consistently across a number of years. Kemp has elite speed, agility and has dominated in both KPP and midfield roles. Stephens has an elite mix of endurance and pace. I can see these guys transferring their skillset to the top level a lot easier than Pickett.

 

[Mr_Plow]

It means different things to different people.

Recruiters hang their hat on 'finding' the next champion and that's perfectly fine.
It's also wise (very wise) to then have a List Manager make the final call on the player taking the list as a whole, into account.
I think it has to be that way and the smarter we get, the better we'll get.

I don't understand what GWS have done in the last couple of years. I didn't before and I certainly don't know now.
Yes, they took the best available but for what end result? What will Bonar, Caldwell, O'Hallaran and Hately achieve for them when the types they really needed were in the frame for selection by them? They now have Green coming on board. Bonar has already been given away for nothing and one of the 2017 guys will likely seek opportunity elsewhere because it may not be there for them at GWS. Why didn't they take Higgins, Richards, Clark, Duursma, or Sturt - Players that made for the better fit given their list profile and players that had a chance of making it into their best team?

It's about winning games of football and not just about trying to find the next Brownlow Medallist

Football is not played on paper and it certainly isn't played or won by having the most talented players on a list overall who can't actually play football together.

Best available and trading for needs is a risky concept, there are no guarantees, particularly at the trade table, as we have doubtless seen.

 

[Eiffel 65]

Or draft for needs with your later picks to fill the gaps. Would much rather take someone like Cahill with our pick in the 40's than take a small forward like Weightman, Pickett and maybe even Serong with 9.

That's the way a lot of successful clubs have done it in the past.

Cahill deserves more credit. Actually staggered that hardly anyone on this board mentions his name.

 

[HARKER]

In fairness, Papley was labelled as a 'big fish' so he can't be classified purely as trading for needs.

Nic Newman is an example of trading for needs. These sorts of trades can be facilitated, but I'm not 100% convinced SOS have been chasing these types of role players very hard. Either that or he was genuinely hoping some of the delisted GWS recruits would come good.

There's nothing wrong with drafting Pickett, but there are clearly others that have been more consistent and had a bigger impact over a longer period of time. He has X-factor, but you need to remember he's shorter than Eddie Betts and not as quick as Rioli, so there will be question marks as to whether his game will stack up at the top level. I can see these guys transferring their skillset to the top level a lot easier than Pickett.

Looking at other prospects, Young has a damaging left boot, extremely agile (7.94 secs at combine) and a great intercept mark. Serong has the capacity to win his own ball in the midfield and played consistently across a number of years. Kemp has elite speed, agility and has dominated in both KPP and midfield roles. Stephens has an elite mix of endurance and pace.

He was a big fish for us and maybe wouldn't have been seen as quite the big fish to other clubs.
He was a big fish because we didn't his type around the club and Polson, LeBois or Gibbons don't count.

You have to be open to all possibilities when putting together your list and to close yourself off to only one way of doing it - Is...let's say...not very good.

Football is not played on paper and it certainly isn't played or won by having the most talented players on a list overall who can't actually play football together.
Best available and trading for needs is a risky concept, there are no guarantees, particularly at the trade table, as we have doubtless seen.

There are no guarantees at all, but one has to have a vision to the plan A, be open to plan B and even have an awareness of what the plan C may be.
This is not a one size fits all competition and ones that close themselves off from possibilites may miss out on them.

 

[HARKER]

That's the way a lot of successful clubs have done it in the past.

Cahill deserves more credit. Actually staggered that hardly anyone on this board mentions his name.

Important point. What was the right way yesterday may not be the right way in the future.

I put this forward recently: Remember how only a few years ago, ruckmen went worth reaching for early in the draft.
Some said they weren't even required any more.....ooops.

 

[Eiffel 65]

He was a big fish for us and maybe wouldn't have been seen as quite the big fish to other clubs.
He was a big fish because we didn't his type around the club and Polson, LeBois or Gibbons don't count.

You have to be open to all possibilities when putting together your list and to close yourself off to only one way of doing it - Is...let's say...not very good.

I agree with this 100%, but when you're finishing 16th on the ladder and been struggling to get out of the bottom 4 for a number of years, you have to take the best available, consistent and proven performers every time.

Only once we've established ourselves as a finals contender would I start contemplating 1st rounders on a needs basis. We don't have that luxury at the moment.

GWS, Richmond and West Coast are teams with the luxury of targeting specific players with first round picks. We're not at that stage yet.

For that reason, Kemp, Young, Serong, Stephens and Robertson are the types we should be looking at as they're proven, consistent performers with the potential to develop into elite players.

 

[HaydossJ]

That's the way a lot of successful clubs have done it in the past.

Cahill deserves more credit. Actually staggered that hardly anyone on this board mentions his name.

I really like him, but Essendon are really into him (met him 4-5 times now) and have 31 & 33.

 

[Eiffel 65]

I really like him, but Essendon are really into him (met him 4-5 times now) and have 31 & 33.

Fair enough. Wasn't aware that was the case.

 

[The Bighouse]

Would we happy to give up next years 1st (‘20 4th coming in as well) to get into this years draft e.g. GCFC 15 & 20, giving up #9 for trade down with Port or Geelong in the teens x 2).
If it was likely; Kemp (or slider), Bergman, C.Stephens, Rivers, D.Williams etc
Try and make additional space on the list (Lang) for a small forward, Cahill or L.Williams.

Next year we would likely be in the hunt for Walsh’s brother, Henry and be in the ear for a Caldwell (2021 picks on the table & later 2020 avail) and maybe a run with Papley again.

 

[Eiffel 65]

Important point. What was the right way yesterday may not be the right way in the future.

I put this forward recently: Remember how only a few years ago, ruckmen went worth reaching for early in the draft.
Some said they weren't even required any more.....ooops.

Fair point, but just remember Jackson also doubles up as a big bodied midfielder when in the ruck and can play KPF. Not just a pure tap ruckman.

 

[Arr0w]

Short term needs? How do you mean short term?
If you've found a player you want, that's who you take and if he's good enough he spends the next 12 years on your list.

Trade for needs? That worked well for us this year.
Maybe we can put all our eggs in the Whitfield and Papley (again) basket next year. There always...always...has to be more than one way to skin a cat.

You're going to see more and more off it Arrow, so best get used to it and it's always funny to me how clubs so often end up with types they need.
What would you say if Melbourne did take Jackson & Pickett with their first two picks? They took best available?

A chance to draft Fyfe or Rance... a chance?
Why isn't Pickett a chance to become a Betts or Rioli?

Think it's more the other way round Harks, think you need to get use to clubs no longer reaching with early/1st round picks and bypassing, letting better talent slide.

We still have holes in every area medium to long term. Draftees have a minimum of 2-4 years before they start to settle into consistency, missing on trade targets one year, means little in the following year/s

I know we are in good hands, SOS won't reach for needs, despite the impatience of many supporters

 

[Blue and Silver]

I really like him, but Essendon are really into him (met him 4-5 times now) and have 31 & 33.

Because Essendon needs another small mid/fwd to go with AMT, Fantasia, Merrett, Devon Smith, Parish, Mosquito, Ham and Snelling.

Dodoro is going to drive that list into the ground

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Arr0w]

Who do you think we should draft. Which way do see sos going

At 9? Best available from his rankings no matter what position that player plays

 

[RoyalParade]

I really like him, but Essendon are really into him (met him 4-5 times now) and have 31 & 33.

I've been on Cahill for a while now.

If * take him, I'll spew up

 

[GT619]

At 9? Best available from his rankings no matter what position that player plays

Yeah at 9. He usually select best available from his eyes

 

[TerryWallet]

Drafting for needs is an interesting concept. Imo "needs" does not just apply to positions on the ground.

I think this whole century we have been a pitiful club in terms of standards and committment to performance and all that entails "doing what needs to be done to help the team win".

I still think our "need" is all the genuine leaders and drivers and lifters we can get. Doc(26), Cripps(25), Weiters(21) and Walsh(19) are these players so far. Of the candidates around the Pick 9 mark this year, Robertson is the standout candidate with these qualities. Ash and Serong as well but a level down. Robertson from all accounts is a real leader in the Cripps mould. Brings his players with him. Has a bit of fun and really well liked but leads by example.

I think we have an incredibly talented young list put together over 4 years. I think, as a playing group, if they are driven and led the right way on the ground on matchday, on the track every session, in the gym, in the off season...then we can turn this club around from the "just turning up is good enough" attitude we've had in the past.

Another "real" leader is a "need" for me. We have the talent. Get the best talented leader. This group are gonna be together for 10 years hopefully.

That's my final push for the "get Robertson" campaign lol....if he's there at 9.

There are so many interesting views looking at things in slightly different ways. But we've got a competant team in SOS, Agresta and Brodie. So am looking forward to Wednesday without trepidation of what they'll do.

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

I'd be looking at the Swans picks 25 and 32, seeing if we can jag at least one of these for a future pick (s).

For example, Swans pick 25 and future 4th for our future 2nd round pick. They'd likely be keen to rack up some points in 2020 for their academy boys.

According to Doerre's phantom draft, a mid 20's pick would potentially give us access to a player such as Bergman, Taylor, Day, Williams, Schoenberg, Dow, Bianco, Taheny, Cahill etc

 

[My Hat]

It seems to me that both sides in this discussion have a fair point.

On the one hand, it's a good idea to draft the best available player (at least in the first round or two) because the difference in quality between that player and the one that best fits your need can be quite large. Using whatever pick you have to fill a need can result in significant overspend.

On other other hand, our list is now in a position where it makes sense for us to focus our efforts on players that fill particular gaps.

How do we square that circle? A couple of ways.

1. Use draft picks as currency to bring in established players that meet our needs.

2. Engage in pick swaps so that we can draft players that meet our needs without overspending for them.

As we all know, the club has been actively pursuing strategy 1 (with mixed results so far) and we are now hearing that strategy 2 is firmly on the table. All of which makes perfect sense.

If we do end up following strategy 2 and trading down from our first round pick, I'd like to see some of what we get back come in the form of future picks to strengthen our hand to pursue strategy 1 again next year.

 

[HBF]

Agree with Arr0w.
Draft the best available, and trade for needs.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

If we're picking best available at 10 and based on our ranking the top 9 have gone, taking our 10th best at 10 probably isn't a great outcome.
Compared with say our 6th best still being there.
But the only ways that happens is if
a) our ranking is flawed
b) other club's rankings are flawed
c) there is a mismatch in rankings due to needs-biased selections

As you get further down the list the opportunity for ranking mismatches grows.