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

[Judge]

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.

Here's where we disagree - I think Schache is verging on "barge pole" material now, for reasons unconnected with his ability to mark or kick a footy.

He needs to step up in a hell of a hurry to turn that perception around.

 

[spotthedog1]

Here's where we disagree - I think Schache is verging on "barge pole" material now, for reasons unconnected with his ability to mark or kick a footy.

He needs to step up in a hell of a hurry to turn that perception around.

Fair enough. Agree to disagree.

 

[spotthedog1]

In different but related news, Revised Trade Week Verdicts are on the AFL website.

Ratings:
Was - 6.7
Now - 7.8

Both what's gone right are about Charlie. Clearly he's resonating with fans. Leaving out value, at the least, he's getting us some positive press, which isn't a bad thing.

I found it interesting looking at the ins and outs though. I've been a vocal critic of our trade period, but the overall picture doesn't look great to me. Here's the overall trade period movements:
In: Charlie Cameron, Luke Hodge, picks 15, 40, 44, 52
Out: Josh Schache, Tom Rockliff, picks 12, 20, 43, 75

To me, that reads ugly. If (big if) we accept that Charlie Cameron was worth pick 12, let's take them out. Hodge was for scraps (75 plus a one pick upgrade), so let's eliminate that too, as it's about right for player out of retirement. We are left with:
In: Picks 15,40,52
Out: Josh Schache, Tom Rockliff, picks 20

Man, that sucks. Schache and Rockliff for 40,52, and a pick upgrade. If we use a points system, we lost Schache AND Rockliff out, combined, for a pick the equivalent of 21. The club's done a magical marketing job convincing fans that they made positive trades, for ratings then and now to come back over 5.0.

 

[jackess]

We got pick 20 for Rockliff so that should probably be cancelled out.

 

[jackess]

In different but related news, Revised Trade Week Verdicts are on the AFL website.

Ratings:
Was - 6.7
Now - 7.8

Both what's gone right are about Charlie. Clearly he's resonating with fans. Leaving out value, at the least, he's getting us some positive press, which isn't a bad thing.

I found it interesting looking at the ins and outs though. I've been a vocal critic of our trade period, but the overall picture doesn't look great to me. Here's the overall trade period movements:
In: Charlie Cameron, Luke Hodge, picks 15, 40, 44, 52
Out: Josh Schache, Tom Rockliff, picks 12, 20, 43, 75

To me, that reads ugly. If (big if) we accept that Charlie Cameron was worth pick 12, let's take them out. Hodge was for scraps (75 plus a one pick upgrade), so let's eliminate that too, as it's about right for player out of retirement. We are left with:
In: Picks 15,40,52
Out: Josh Schache, Tom Rockliff, picks 20

Man, that sucks. Schache and Rockliff for 40,52, and a pick upgrade. If we use a points system, we lost Schache AND Rockliff out, combined, for a pick the equivalent of 21. The club's done a magical marketing job convincing fans that they made positive trades, for ratings then and now to come back over 5.0.

Actually we got 18 for Rockliff. So it should be

In: picks 15, 18, 50 and 52
Out: Shak, Rock and 20

 

[briztoon]

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.

Thanks for the great explanation dlanod.

 

[luthor]

Actually we got 18 for Rockliff. So it should be

In: picks 15, 18, 50 and 52
Out: Shak, Rock and 20

Considering that Schache is now essentially a Penny Dreadful stock, that looks like a good deal to me.

 

[Happy_Neale]

Pretty weak draft too wasn't it? Not a heap of depth.

 

[James North]

Schache was pretty much of no value to us, Rockliff isn’t being missed in our midfield (and isn’t setting the world on fire at Port) and Cameron has single handedly kept us in games.

I’m really comfortable with how we did.

 

[mikey127]

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

We rated Bailey pick 9 and Starc pick 10 so we still got 3 players we rated in the top 10

 

[a mayes ing]

We rated Bailey pick 9 and Starc pick 10 so we still got 3 players we rated in the top 10

Hard to imagine Starc being rated in the top 10 by any other club when he couldn't participate in the main draft activities, did it in the WA ones

 

[briztoon]

Hard to imagine Starc being rated in the top 10 by any other club when he couldn't participate in the main draft activities, did it in the WA ones

Got to remember the club had lengthy(?) list of kids who the club considered as extreme go home factor or ruled out for medical reasons that weren’t on our draft list, so purely on talent the clubs list was somewhat compromised.

 

[Not a Psycho]

Hard to imagine Starc being rated in the top 10 by any other club when he couldn't participate in the main draft activities, did it in the WA ones

He was invited but had a quad injury, hence why he was at the WA combine.

 

[a mayes ing]

Going back to Charlie. Definitly worth pick 12, a player that is going to stay with the Lions for a long time, one who is entering his prime and we didn't have to do his development years. Reckon he could also be an AA in a year or 2

 

[Dylan12]

That mark

 

[spotthedog1]

Considering that Schache is now essentially a Penny Dreadful stock, that looks like a good deal to me.

If you want to disagree, please provide reason and discussion. You're starting from a premise that is the topic of much discussion and debate -- ignoring the debate, choosing the answer you want, and forming conclusions from there isn't helpful.

That is it. Starc was top 10 on our list. Not anyone elses. Idiot.

Mate. You're welcome to disagree, but there is no need for namecalling. Play the ball and not the man. Briztoon stating that we excluded a significant portion of the draft class provides very important context. Especially since the major reason involved neither "lack of talent" nor "lack of potential". The initial comment was "we got three players we rated in the top 10", which I think is untrue. We don't know who the recruiters thought were the top 10 players in the draft. It's fair to say that if we were based in Fitzroy, our board would've looked very different.

 

[blynd_freddie]

That mark

Pfffft... not worth anything less than a 15 selection.

 

[Skoob]

Close thread.

 

[Surly Boy]

Maybe we should just use this thread to post his highlights from now on.... Will keep it moving along nicely!

 

[Billy Puller]

Has anyone won both Mark & goal of the year in the same year?

 

[seanthelion]

Has anyone won both Mark & goal of the year in the same year?

From wikipedia:

"Two players have managed to win both the "Mark of the Year" and "Goal of the Year" awards in the same season: Michael Mitchell and Peter Bosustow."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_of_the_Year

 

[Ironmonger]

He must have run over the head of umpiring's dog during the week.

 

[Skoob]

He sprayed a shot at one stage yesterday, and it still made me smile, even laugh. The effort, magic, entertainment and excitement from Charlie is worth pick 12 alone.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Transformative player.

I'd pay a subscription fee of pick 12 every year to keep him on our list.

 

[Milux]

Absolute star and so good to watch. Has plenty left in footy as well. Just about everything he touches is gold.