News Charlie and the Lions Factory - the Everlasting Charlie Cameron Trade Thread

[dlanod]

One aspect of the draft that I do not understand here is people's insistence that clubs should not draft certain types of players or positions with early picks. Form my point of view this is silly (wanted to use much stronger language here). The draft is about acquiring elite talent. If the very best kid in the draft is a small forward, take him.

I know your background is in basketball and that's not the best example to draw from in this case. If you follow the NFL, you'd see a similar approach to what happens in the AFL.

The draft, ultimately, isn't about acquiring elite talent. That's too simple. The draft is about improving your team (true in any league), part of which is acquiring elite talent. In the NBA you can do that by taking a player at any position because there's only five players on the court at once. In sports with larger teams (AFL, NFL), the bigger impact is from players who have the ball the most often and/or are in a position to directly affect scoring. The more a player affects the ball the more of an impact he can have.

What that means is there is a general ranking of positions based off the impact they can have on the team:

• Midfield - can touch the ball 30+ times a game, plus affect the contest another 10-20 times.
• Key forward - can contest 20+ times a game, even if they don't win them all, along with 10-20 disposals.
• Key back - see above, though less impact on the scoreboard (if they are truly amazing, teams just target their teammates instead).
• Small defender - depending on the defender, can touch the ball 20-30 times a game.
• Ruckman - less than ten hitouts to advantage per game and 10-20 disposals.
• Small forward - touches the ball 10-20 times a game with 10+ more contests.

The NFL is similar:

• Quarterback touches the ball on every snap.
• Pass rusher affects the play on every snap.
• Offensive line (especially tackles) blocks the pass rushers, so affects the play on every snap.
• Wide receiver and cornerback affects the play on 55-60% of snaps (passing plays).
• A given running back touches the ball on about 30% of snaps.
• Inside linebacker/defensive linemen stops the run on about 30% of snaps.
• Punters and kickers only touch the ball 5-10 times a game, if that.

The higher a position is, the most chances they have to impact a game. An elite talent at small forward isn't going to win you a game unless the rest of your team hits a base level of competitiveness. An elite talent at midfield can, as can KPF (see the years when we got pulled over the line by 6+ goals from Browny). In the NFL positions like running back have been downgraded over the years because they can't impact on the team as much, and quarterbacks have increased in value even though they might not be as dominant at their position as a corresponding inside lineman or runningback. We're seeing a similar system apply here, with ruckmans slipping more often now.

FWIW even in basketball it isn't a true "take the elite talent" metric. There's a reason "unicorns" are rated higher than others even though they're technically not as talented as some smaller players. The centres and power forwards that play like an average point guard are still more valuable than an elite point guard, even though the later is arguably more talented. Look at Chris Paul vs LeBron James. One is able to drag his team to the conference finals almost every year, one was barely able to drag his team beyond the first round, even though arguably Paul is the more skilled off the two.

If the very best player in the draft is a small forward and the second best is a midfielder or key forward, then you're backing that small forward to have two or three times more of an impact per contest than the midfielder or KPF. I know that's hard to measure but I'm yet to see a small forward that's two to three times better than any other player from their draft.

 

[spotthedog1]

If we did trade 18 for Cameron we might have still drafted Bailey and Starcevich at 12 and 15 but who knows.

You not used to me agreeing with you?

Based on draft night functions, we had Fogarty at 5th-6th on our list. Very likely we'd have taken Fogarty at 12. Our drafting appears fine. I still think we reached a bit for Starc, but I'm hardly an expert, so happy to trust the recruiters.

But last year particularly, we just did so weirdly at the trade table.
Cameron for pick 12 (up from 18, up from a lower pick). In hindsight, this isn't a complete ripoff, but was definitely overpaying.
Schache for 25+40 implies that we really were just flogging him off. Clearly no one else bought the spin we were pushing all fortnight.
20+25 for 15+change is a very odd trading, and I still think it had to be a miscommunication between our staff - it indicates a HUGE dropoff in talent between 18 and 20, which seems unlikely. Quite possibly a last-minute-scramble stuff-up.

It just seems like such a results driven method, which is fine, but not at the complete disregard of cost.

 

[Judge]

.

But last year particularly, we just did so weirdly at the trade table.
Cameron for pick 12 (up from 18, up from a lower pick). In hindsight, this isn't a complete ripoff, but was definitely overpaying.
Schache for 25+40 implies that we really were just flogging him off. Clearly no one else bought the spin we were pushing all fortnight.
20+25 for 15+change is a very odd trading, and I still think it had to be a miscommunication between our staff - it indicates a HUGE dropoff in talent between 18 and 20, which seems unlikely. Quite possibly a last-minute-scramble stuff-up.

It just seems like such a results driven method, which is fine, but not at the complete disregard of cost.

You seem to still be a bit obsessed about the Schache trade, which bemuses me because there's absolutely no doubt that we were in fact "just flogging him off" and for good reason.

What do you reckon the Dogs would be offered for Schache right now if he was put up for trade? Something less than what they paid, maybe?

Players are like shares in a way, when what initially looked like a great investment goes south the purchase price doesn't mean anything, you dump the stock, cut your losses and move on.

 

[jackess]

You seem to still be a bit obsessed about the Schache trade, which bemuses me because there's absolutely no doubt that we were in fact "just flogging him off" and for good reason.

What do you reckon the Dogs would be offered for Schache right now if he was put up for trade? Something less than what they paid, maybe?

Players are like shares in a way, when what initially looked like a great investment goes south the purchase price doesn't mean anything, you dump the stock, cut your losses and move on.

That's a great point. Gee he's a long way off. Similar with Boyd although he's shown more he's definitely not worth a first round pick.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

That's a great point. Gee he's a long way off. Similar with Boyd although he's shown more he's definitely not worth a first round pick.

Boyd is probably worth a later first round pick, definitely not pick 1. But we are all experts in hindsight. Boyd and Patton were both regarded as near pick 1 certainties in their draft year and Schache 1 or 2. None of them come close to Roughead or Buddy who were both later picks in a strong draft, but who's to say who the busts and booms will be in any one year.

 

[Checkered]

I'd argue Charlie's stock has gone up since we bought him. It makes our payment look better in retrospect, but we still overpaid at the time. If you pay $1.20 for a stock that is only worth $1, you've overpaid regardless of whether that stock goes up to $1.30 in the future. It looks great because you've made a profit, but you've made 10c instead of 30c - and you will never get back that extra 20c you gave.

Pick 12 at the time was too much, and if we'd been smarter at the trade table we could have got him for a fairer price, and his fantastic start to the year would have been a much bigger win for us.

Using this argument, I'd say that we bought him at $1.20 hoping he would be worth $1.30 but he's already exceeding all of our expectations and is worth $1.50. Sure on the open market he might have been worth $1 but it wasn't an open market, it was a market with limited supply and we paid what we had to secure him.

So sure you could say that we overpaid but that's a hugely glass half full take when you can also say that he's exceeded expectations and is more than justifying the price paid.

 

[jackess]

Similar to the Schache comparison. What do people think Cameron would be worth if he requested a trade?

 

[Hollow Knight]

Similar to the Schache comparison. What do people think Cameron would be worth if he requested a trade?

Worth to who? Value is influenced by need.

You seem real invested in this topic jackess!

 

[captainrich]

You not used to me agreeing with you?

Based on draft night functions, we had Fogarty at 5th-6th on our list. Very likely we'd have taken Fogarty at 12. Our drafting appears fine. I still think we reached a bit for Starc, but I'm hardly an expert, so happy to trust the recruiters.

But last year particularly, we just did so weirdly at the trade table.
Cameron for pick 12 (up from 18, up from a lower pick). In hindsight, this isn't a complete ripoff, but was definitely overpaying.
Schache for 25+40 implies that we really were just flogging him off. Clearly no one else bought the spin we were pushing all fortnight.
20+25 for 15+change is a very odd trading, and I still think it had to be a miscommunication between our staff - it indicates a HUGE dropoff in talent between 18 and 20, which seems unlikely. Quite possibly a last-minute-scramble stuff-up.

It just seems like such a results driven method, which is fine, but not at the complete disregard of cost.

While I agree with you, we massively overpaid I will note Darcy Fogarty could have turned around and left within 2 years...better yet he might not have been around and our options might have been guys like Ed Richards, Lachie O'Brien etc who are bigger flight risks and inturn we end up taking Zac Bailey anyway

our trade for Schache is best we could do so whatever, the Richmond trade was just ridiculous though I thought at the time if it was basically to make sure they don't bid on Conor Ballendar early....which seemed ridiculous afterwards as he dropped into the 40s

 

[jackess]

Worth to who? Value is influenced by need.

You seem real invested in this topic jackess!

It's just an interesting concept. He's been a good addition to our side. Could pick 12 have been used in a better way? Was a small forward the best use of a high draft pick?

If I was the Crows I'd be over the moon with pick 12 and while a win-win is a good result for us. I don't think it's the result we should be aiming for when adding players to our list.

 

[Skoob]

It's just an interesting concept. He's been a good addition to our side. Could pick 12 have been used in a better way? Was a small forward the best use of a high draft pick?

If I was the Crows I'd be over the moon with pick 12 and while a win-win is a good result for us. I don't think it's the result we should be aiming for when adding players to our list.

Win-Lose?
Lose-Win?
Lose-Lose?

 

[jackess]

Win-Lose?
Lose-Win?
Lose-Lose?

Win-lose. Obviously.

Giving up a good pick for a good player won't make much of a difference long term. It's certainly a lot better than a lot of our trades in the past but it's not like West Coast trading for Yeo or Docherty for Carlton.

 

[bungalow_bill]

While I agree with you, we massively overpaid I will note Darcy Fogarty could have turned around and left within 2 years...better yet he might not have been around and our options might have been guys like Ed Richards, Lachie O'Brien etc who are bigger flight risks and inturn we end up taking Zac Bailey anyway

our trade for Schache is best we could do so whatever, the Richmond trade was just ridiculous though I thought at the time if it was basically to make sure they don't bid on Conor Ballendar early....which seemed ridiculous afterwards as he dropped into the 40s

Any player at 12 is a potential FR but Cameron is almost a certainty to stay. Similar to the GC giving pick 2 for Weller. Also how much did the club factor in Charlie's mental health when deciding not to wait until he is out of contract? All things considered pick 12 is looking like a great trade. Imagine pick 2 for Weller

 

[dlanod]

Win-lose. Obviously.

Giving up a good pick for a good player won't make much of a difference long term. It's certainly a lot better than a lot of our trades in the past but it's not like West Coast trading for Yeo or Docherty for Carlton.

Win-lose is also why until recently no one traded with Essendon but Sydney could keep topping up its team.

 

[jackess]

Win-lose is also why until recently no one traded with Essendon but Sydney could keep topping up its team.

Obviously when players leave you get the best you can but when looking at poaching players you look to get good value. It was a good trade but no more of an accomplishment than the Paine/Karnezis trade.

We traded a pick worth Cameron's potential (which he looks like he may reach) and the Crows got a great deal for an average performer who they won't miss a great deal.

Fortunately for us Cameron has made a huge improvement in his kicking and looks like a more consistent contributor than he was at the Crows.

And I'm not sure how you can approve of the Cameron trade and then knock the Weller trade.

 

[blynd_freddie]

Using this argument, I'd say that we bought him at $1.20 hoping he would be worth $1.30 but he's already exceeding all of our expectations and is worth $1.50. Sure on the open market he might have been worth $1 but it wasn't an open market, it was a market with limited supply and we paid what we had to secure him.

So sure you could say that we overpaid but that's a hugely glass half full take when you can also say that he's exceeded expectations and is more than justifying the price paid.

I like your thinking - using $values is clever in its simplicity.

• Charlie has increased his average disposals per game every year since being drafted by the crows and is currently at a career high.
• he has never kicked more than 29 goals in a year - currently on target to do it this year. [15 in 8 games.]
• I can't put a $value on memberships/bums on seats wanting to see this excitement machine but guess what, it's a reality.

I'm able to make a point with facts, the other side of the argument/opinion is based wholly on hypothetical speculation. It's still too early to conclusively tell but in only eight games I'm comfortable with the scenario as it stands and where it looks to be trending.

 

[royboys4eva]

Cameron had a very good 2016 season for memory in Adelaide and he started 2017 very well. The rumours started rather early that he might be looking to head North to Brisbane and it seemed like as a result his form dipped somewhat. Funny enough when finals came around he was super and show cased what we all knew he was capable.

I get the feeling once he started discussing going to Brisbane that he lost his way somewhat - knowing that perhaps he wouldn't necessarily be at Adelaide in 2018. He wouldn't be the first player to do this. As you would expect of any proud athlete once finals started he lifted and gave everything.

So in essence the 2106 and start of 2017 form was always good and he has gone back to that consistent level.

 

[dlanod]

And I'm not sure how you can approve of the Cameron trade and then knock the Weller trade.

I assume the use of "you" is abstract there rather than ascribing to me any particular feelings on the Cameron and/or Weller trades.

 

[jackess]

I assume the use of "you" is abstract there rather than ascribing to me any particular feelings on the Cameron and/or Weller trades.

You are correct.

 

[werdna78]

When dealing with other teams WIN WIN is the best outcome. Always have to have an eye for the future. IMO we're only a destination club for homesick QLDER'S. The kids we draft have to stay for at least 2 years.

The club is going to free up some cap space this year, with the inevitable delistings we will have, enabling the club to offer better contracts to our younger players.

With free agency the way it is, we won't attract a player wanting to play finals unless we are.

Imagine where we would be if we didn't get homesick QLDer's. Take out the following players.

Beams
Bell
Cameron
Christenson

 

[Leuy LongerCombo]

The Fogarty comparison,while its an easy one to make, taken with the traded pick and we obviousily rated him according to our big board. However having sercured Rayner, who had similar question marks of his fitness, would this have changed our views on Fogarty? There will also be the questions about him developing the same in our environment or even potentially requesting a trade, too many unknown to get too worked up over.

The price paid in the end was fair. The whispers of Cameron potentially wanting a trade were on here mid-season, like most I started tracking his form from them. That mid season form meant I saw his value like many others as our second rounder, it nearly became ingrained that was fair value. I wonder if we didn't hear about Cameron wanting to move until trade week, after playing that great Prelim we'd would have moved on quicker.

Saying we should have held off til this year is obviously risky. Worth noting that Gold Coast just sercured West Coast future first rounder (which was commonly believed they hoped would secure Weller) I'm sure the question would have been asked pretty quickly if we didn't come to the part. Adelaides moves in last years trade period all indicated they wanted big in this years draft, I'm sure that pick would have been just as appealing.

 

[spotthedog1]

You seem to still be a bit obsessed about the Schache trade, which bemuses me because there's absolutely no doubt that we were in fact "just flogging him off" and for good reason.

What do you reckon the Dogs would be offered for Schache right now if he was put up for trade? Something less than what they paid, maybe?

Actually, I was listing trades to demonstrate a pattern. And I agreed that we were flogging him off. I'm not sure why you highlighted the Richmond trade as well though. Separate trade, and we screwed the pooch.

But to answer your question, what is he worth now? Well, we got 25+40 for him. Since then, he's been fairly average, settling in to a new location. I haven't watched the VFL, but I understand he's put together one or two good games in the last couple of weeks... Not AFL grade, but not without ability, and let's not forget he's a KPP, so maturity age is still 3-4 years off. There's no doubt he's got promise, and showed a lot of potential in earlier years. While I agree that draft value is point-in-time only, there'd have to be exception reason for him to lose well over half of his value quickly. I see reasons, but they are: he's a key forward who isn't ready for senior football at age 20, and he struggled with homesickness. That is not exceptional, that's not even abnormal.

I'd say that if we had a mid-year trade period, and were looking at trading him out now, he'd still get at least 25+40. An ex-pick 2 doesn't mean a lot any more, but it does show the amount of promise that was considered possible. That depreciates, sure, but not within 2 years.

The sharemarket comparison seems fitting. Rookies aren't blue chips. They're development stock. Like mining companies, medical research companies and IT companies. If a share floats at 20c as a development stock, it'll have a few good announcements, and jump to 30c or 40c. But even though you've signposted that it won't be ready for market until 2020, it drops back over time. It's not unusual to see stocks that floated around 20c, with no bad news, drifting at 8-10c, just spiking in price every time news is announced, and floating back down. It's only once they're making sales that they stay at a reasonable price.

This is the same with AFL players - they're development stock. You develop a blue chip over time. So before you buy, you research. And if your research says you have a long term prospect, and you invest at 20c, then in 2 years, it doesn't matter if it's 8c, you don't sell at the bottom. You hold it. Unless the information changes and you no longer believe that they'll be a good company, you don't sell at the bottom.

Now, it's possible that the Lions stopped believing that they had a good development stock on their hands, and instead had a penny dreadful. And that's fine. But I'm just saying, it's 2 years in a Key Forward. I find it hard to believe he's gone from top 2 pick to 2nd rounder in 2 years of development.

 

[Jcpdragonx]

I always thought draft picks are overrated especially given how weak last year was. Think you guys got the better deal now, trading away players in early 20s after developing them for 4 years is just a disaster for the club.

 

[Hollow Knight]

When dealing with other teams WIN WIN is the best outcome. Always have to have an eye for the future. IMO we're only a destination club for homesick QLDER'S. The kids we draft have to stay for at least 2 years.

The club is going to free up some cap space this year, with the inevitable delistings we will have, enabling the club to offer better contracts to our younger players.

With free agency the way it is, we won't attract a player wanting to play finals unless we are.

Imagine where we would be if we didn't get homesick QLDer's. Take out the following players.

Beams
Bell
Cameron
Christenson

Christensen is from Lara, near Geelong.

 

[werdna78]

Christensen is from Lara, near Geelong.

Yes, not a Queenslander, but he wanted to come here.