Collingwood List Management Thread

[Zahki]

Not this year. It's still compromised by all the GWS picks. Next year will be a normal draft and word is it's going to be a very good one, that's the draft to trade into if we want to. By then I expect we'll need to shed some players to keep the core of our side together like all sides that have sustained success need to do.

 

[sr36]

Not this year. It's still compromised by all the GWS picks. Next year will be a normal draft and word is it's going to be a very good one, that's the draft to trade into if we want to. By then I expect we'll need to shed some players to keep the core of our side together like all sides that have sustained success need to do.

GWS may be more inclined to trade picks than GC were. In regards to 2012 - if it is a great crop, all clubs would be on to this and thus next year's draft picks will be more expensive, eg. you may be able to trade a particular player for pick 20 this year, but only pick 40 next year.

 

[Knightmare]

I hope the Pies keep there High Draft Picks this year as we have traded them for the last 2 Seasons.

Your Thoughts?

I'm not fussed either way. If we can get a better talent by doing something else go for it. If we can get the best talent through the draft. Do that.

I'd certainly once again be open to the potential loopholes available, investigate all the potential options open to us, and see how we can add the best available talent.

I wouldn't mind seeing us go a step further and trade into a stronger draft position.

I'm not a huge fan of trading up in the draft. When you do this you really need a particular talent or group of talents in mind or really feel that through moving up that you will add a significantly better player, which is hard to do with consistantcy even if you identify a standout group in the draft.

As a team going for premierships now there is little point giving away quality players just to move up the draft a couple of positions. We have a young core group which should be competitive for a long period of time with a bit of luck, so it's not really necessary to do this because the potential loss is most likely greater than the potential gain.

Not this year. It's still compromised by all the GWS picks. Next year will be a normal draft and word is it's going to be a very good one, that's the draft to trade into if we want to. By then I expect we'll need to shed some players to keep the core of our side together like all sides that have sustained success need to do.

2012 certainly is the year to do it if we intend to, but I would still question whether we need to upgrade picks. In an even stronger draft opposition clubs will be less willing to trade their high draft picks and would demand a high level player + 1st round pick for their higher level 1st rounder, which again is questionable.

GWS may be more inclined to trade picks than GC were. In regards to 2012 - if it is a great crop, all clubs would be on to this and thus next year's draft picks will be more expensive, eg. you may be able to trade a particular player for pick 20 this year, but only pick 40 next year.

Hard to know how willing GWS will be to trade picks. They will certainly have learned from the introduction of GC, but what they have learned will be interesting. Even having seen what GC have done, I probably would have taken a similar, super long term approach where short term success is not a priority, but instead loading the top talents through a number of successive drafts onto the list. eg. trading into future 1st round draft picks from the clubs they added players as free agents.

Certainly agree it will be allot more difficult to get those high selections off of clubs. They will have mostly value those selections very highly and need a near star level player on the table for an exchange to be considered.

 

[JOELY]

Do you think Sheedy will get in the way of potential GWS trades with us? Surely he will stay out of it and let the experts deal with that stuff, but you never know. While I feel the Mckenna link may have helped our trades with GC go smoothly, Sheedy might be stubborn in our dealings with them.

 

[Scodog10]

As I understand it Stewart is within that age group which does make him eligable.

Why it is in the best interest of GWS to make deals with Coll+Ess+Melb for the F/S though the x4 prelisted is because they get a draft pick/ player and allowing them the ability to make a profit without reducing the very top available talent they will have on offer.

So if sold on O'Meara for example assuming they finish bottom of the ladder, they might be able to take him with their selection in the draft rather than giving him up to an opposition club for profit, because after all it is probably advantageous for them to get a few years of very top talents similar to what GCS did this year + will do over the next 2 seasons with the future draft picks rather than build quicker and only have the one season of quality draft picks. Because the period of dominance likely won't be as good as if you can get those multiple years of very top selections.

In the scenario we wanted O'Meara it would cost significantly more. More likely one of Pendlebury/Thomas or Beams/Sidebottom + 1st round pick. So considering our position it's probably hard to see us wanting to do push that hard for a long term player when you want to keep your current group together.

I see your point in terms of keeping them in the talent pool and getting something for nothing but I just think there's more value in GWS trading the gun youngsters if they can get a deal like the one you put forward than waiting and hoping to get just one of them in the 2012 draft. This added concession has been put in place to give them a real advantage (even above GC) as a chance to inject some quality ready made players into their system and a first round pick from us isn't really taking full toll of it.

For example imagine if they could secure Fyfe for O'Meara and Goddard for Stringer then compare that to pick 25 for Stewart, I know which way I'd go. Especially considering they'll end up with as many gun youngsters as GC due to the 12 17 year olds and 9 first round draft picks in 2011.

Also take into account that they won't be in line for a priority pick in 2012 so they will only have 1 shot in the top 5, even that might not be guaranteed if they follow a similar curve to GC. Plus both of the Lions and Power might receive before the first round priority picks, which would be understandable considering the imminent losses of Black, Power, both Cornses, Brogan and the potential raiding of Clark, Lauenberger, Rich, Boak and Carlisle.

If I were Steve Silvagni I'd go 3 gun youngsters to be traded (for arguments sake Yarran, Stringer and O'Meara on the proviso they get deals like the one you listed) and one of Viney or Daniher because they look the two best father son prospects. That way they get something for nothing as well as getting some quality ready made players. BTW I do hope we're able to secure Stewart this way it'd just give us another small advantage but I personally just don't think it will happen...

Dave I saw the highlights on one of the footy shows, can't remember which one though, O'Meara just looks a natural based on that clip but for a really informed opinion head to the Draft board no doubt one of the W.A posters will be able to pass you some info on him.

 

[Knightmare]

Do you think Sheedy will get in the way of potential GWS trades with us? Surely he will stay out of it and let the experts deal with that stuff, but you never know. While I feel the Mckenna link may have helped our trades with GC go smoothly, Sheedy might be stubborn in our dealings with them.

If we come up with a trade which benefits GWS there won't be any reason why he won't do business with us.

You can't expect the type of treatment we get to/ from Sydney, so don't expect any discounts and can't see us giving any discounts either.

I see your point in terms of keeping them in the talent pool and getting something for nothing but I just think there's more value in GWS trading the gun youngsters if they can get a deal like the one you put forward than waiting and hoping to get just one of them in the 2012 draft. This added concession has been put in place to give them a real advantage (even above GC) as a chance to inject some quality ready made players into their system and a first round pick from us isn't really taking full toll of it.

For example imagine if they could secure Fyfe for O'Meara and Goddard for Stringer then compare that to pick 25 for Stewart, I know which way I'd go. Especially considering they'll end up with as many gun youngsters as GC due to the 12 17 year olds and 9 first round draft picks in 2011.

Also take into account that they won't be in line for a priority pick in 2012 so they will only have 1 shot in the top 5, even that might not be guaranteed if they follow a similar curve to GC. Plus both of the Lions and Power might receive before the first round priority picks, which would be understandable considering the imminent losses of Black, Power, both Cornses, Brogan and the potential raiding of Clark, Lauenberger, Rich, Boak and Carlisle.

If I were Steve Silvagni I'd go 3 gun youngsters to be traded (for arguments sake Yarran, Stringer and O'Meara on the proviso they get deals like the one you listed) and one of Viney or Daniher because they look the two best father son prospects. That way they get something for nothing as well as getting some quality ready made players. BTW I do hope we're able to secure Stewart this way it'd just give us another small advantage but I personally just don't think it will happen...

Good post.
Absolutely right. They need to do whatever gets them the greatest value.
You could even be right that GWS decide to trade Viney + Daniher (I think it's near certain at this stage) but also two of O'Meara, Stringer and Yarran instead of Stewart because that way they could secure the greatest value.

Out of our control really. We'll see what happens.

 

[Zahki]

A good exercise to do would be to ask what other clubs would be willing to give up. You say we'd need to give up Thomas or Sidebottom, but would Essendon give Watson or Hurley? Would Carlton be putting Gibbs or Murphy on the table? I can't see any club giving away any of their top 10 players so I think what we'd have to give up is a little exaggerated. GWS will get what they can but ultimately it won't be anyone of real quality, they'll be getting those players through their uncontracted signings. No club willingly gives up a gun player for an unproven 17 year old.

 

[Scodog10]

A good exercise to do would be to ask what other clubs would be willing to give up. You say we'd need to give up Thomas or Sidebottom, but would Essendon give Watson or Hurley? Would Carlton be putting Gibbs or Murphy on the table? I can't see any club giving away any of their top 10 players so I think what we'd have to give up is a little exaggerated. GWS will get what they can but ultimately it won't be anyone of real quality, they'll be getting those players through their uncontracted signings. No club willingly gives up a gun player for an unproven 17 year old.

I think you make a valid point but if St Kilda continue their downward spiral and realise Goddard could be GWS bound in 2012 as an uncontracted player, they would get much more value by trading with them for one of these kids than letting him leave and allowing the AFL to decide the compensation.

 

[Knightmare]

A good exercise to do would be to ask what other clubs would be willing to give up. You say we'd need to give up Thomas or Sidebottom, but would Essendon give Watson or Hurley? Would Carlton be putting Gibbs or Murphy on the table? I can't see any club giving away any of their top 10 players so I think what we'd have to give up is a little exaggerated. GWS will get what they can but ultimately it won't be anyone of real quality, they'll be getting those players through their uncontracted signings. No club willingly gives up a gun player for an unproven 17 year old.

Fremantle + West Coast would likely move nearly anything within reason for O'Meara.

Agree with Scodog on St Kilda. Look incredibly likely to need to agressively rebuild even if it means a Goddard is traded. The team has lost all spirit and needs to do a list cleanout and bring in new talent.

But generally clubs don't like to do gun for gun because club loyalty and the loyalty of clubs towards their players is very high in the AFL relative to other sports.

Certainly can't see an Essendon or Carlton giving up key "now players" for a future star because they are both clearly top 6 sides. But aging lists who know they won't win another premiership with what they have (St Kilda, Geelong or Western Bull Dogs - in my view anyway) might look to do this because what they have right now isn't enough if they want to take a premiership off any of the younger teams.

 

[sr36]

I don't think that they'll trade any of the top 17 year olds. Like GC, they'll try to keep as many top shelf youngsters as possible. I see them trading lower rated youngsters for picks in the 30s and then on trading those picks for seasoned players.

 

[Knightmare]

I don't think that they'll trade any of the top 17 year olds. Like GC, they'll try to keep as many top shelf youngsters as possible. I see them trading lower rated youngsters for picks in the 30s and then on trading those picks for seasoned players.

GWS have access to four players who can be traded who are born in the first 4 months who would be eligable for the 2012 draft.

So not draft eligable this year and can't go straight onto the GWS list.

It's just a part of the concessions to give GWS the greatest opportunity to become successful more quickly.

If GWS don't trade those four players, then they get nothing in return. So it's in their best interests and the opportunity to add possibly 4 high level talents or the ability to add some additional draft picks is not bad at all in addition to the concessions Gold Coast already had.

 

[Scodog10]

I don't think that they'll trade any of the top 17 year olds. Like GC, they'll try to keep as many top shelf youngsters as possible. I see them trading lower rated youngsters for picks in the 30s and then on trading those picks for seasoned players.

They can't keep the 4 youngsters we're referring to. One of the rules in place with GWS is that they can trade 4 kids born between January and April 1994 to any of the other 17 clubs.

They've already listed their 12 17 year olds, which no club has a hope in hell of securing, off the top of my head I can think of Bugg, Golds, Treloar and Shiel (Shiel would've just about gone number 1 this year if available). Those 4 are the GWS equivilent of Matera, Weller, Jolly and Russell.

Edit: Beaten to the punch by Knight

 

[sr36]

Apologies. I was under the impression that they could list 16 and had to trade 4 of them. In that case it's an extremely interesting situation. Will an aging team like the saints or the dogs decide that their time has passed and that a rebuild is necessary and thus trade out a gun? - I doubt it. Will any team be willing to trade out some genuine young talent, because they like the look of one potential recruit? - I doubt it, as supporter repurcussions would be large. Will we finally see the dream of every bigfooty trade suggester come true, eg parcel up a couple of borderline guys for a potential top 5 draft pick. - If it's ever going to happen, it will be now, as GSW will probably want some hardened experience and they might not get offered true value. I'd be quite happy to see us offer up our first pick plus Goldsack and Macaffer, if we really rate an eligible player. I also think that it would be a pretty good deal for GSW. Two physical, intense, versatile first 21 players to set a great example for the plethora of youth that will make up their team as well as a draft pick in the twenties.

 

[Harry O]

- If it's ever going to happen, it will be now, as GSW will probably want some hardened experience and they might not get offered true value. I'd be quite happy to see us offer up our first pick plus Goldsack and Macaffer, if we really rate an eligible player. I also think that it would be a pretty good deal for GSW. Two physical, intense, versatile first 21 players to set a great example for the plethora of youth that will make up their team as well as a draft pick in the twenties.

Agreed. If I was GWS I would be trading these 4 picks for ready made hard nuts. Not more draft picks which they already have plenty of. Some ready to go big bodies to protect the kids ala a Heath Hocking type or a Mark Jamar type.

 

[Knightmare]

Apologies. I was under the impression that they could list 16 and had to trade 4 of them. In that case it's an extremely interesting situation. Will an aging team like the saints or the dogs decide that their time has passed and that a rebuild is necessary and thus trade out a gun? - I doubt it. Will any team be willing to trade out some genuine young talent, because they like the look of one potential recruit? - I doubt it, as supporter repurcussions would be large. Will we finally see the dream of every bigfooty trade suggester come true, eg parcel up a couple of borderline guys for a potential top 5 draft pick. - If it's ever going to happen, it will be now, as GSW will probably want some hardened experience and they might not get offered true value. I'd be quite happy to see us offer up our first pick plus Goldsack and Macaffer, if we really rate an eligible player. I also think that it would be a pretty good deal for GSW. Two physical, intense, versatile first 21 players to set a great example for the plethora of youth that will make up their team as well as a draft pick in the twenties.

If teams don't want to give up their better players, which you could certainly be right about. Then that plays into our hands and gives us a chance at Stewart through the F/S loophole. The most likely type of trade would be of a near star level player who is currently unhappy with his current situation and wants a trade or wants to move closer to home/ other reasons.

It's incredibly hard to see GWS taking on fringe players, even Goldsack or Macaffer who both played in our premiership last year. But they could certainly do worse. Would have to be worth more than our pick coming in during the mid 20s in any case.

GWS would you'd think go for under 25s, so maybe players in this age group could be of interest.

Just have to see what happens and what other clubs are willing to give up.

 

[brockbruiser]

It's incredibly hard to see GWS taking on fringe players, even Goldsack or Macaffer who both played in our premiership last year.


I can see GWS taking on fringe players especially if some of their Magpie bigger targets such as Swan, Pendles & Daisy reject offers, they may try and take what they can. I still think these two can become very good players. And lets face it some of our fringe players would walk into any other teams 22.

I will be interested to see what happens with Scott Reed at the end of the year. Im not sure if he will retained or not but I would be interested to see if GWS would be interested in him. Seems o.k at VFL level, perhaps a bit inconsistent.

 

[TradeDraft]

I will be interested to see what happens with Scott Reed at the end of the year. Im not sure if he will retained or not but I would be interested to see if GWS would be interested in him. Seems o.k at VFL level, perhaps a bit inconsistent.

I would not be surprised if we De-List Reed at Seasons End

 

[Knightmare]

I can see GWS taking on fringe players especially if some of their Magpie bigger targets such as Swan, Pendles & Daisy reject offers, they may try and take what they can. I still think these two can become very good players. And lets face it some of our fringe players would walk into any other teams 22.

I will be interested to see what happens with Scott Reed at the end of the year. Im not sure if he will retained or not but I would be interested to see if GWS would be interested in him. Seems o.k at VFL level, perhaps a bit inconsistent.

GWS is such an unknown. Will be interesting to see what they can get. Very unclear at this stage. But they will go for whatever gets what they view as the greatest value.

Agree with TD on Reed. In his 3rd season would want to break through for some senior games. Showed some good signs last year. But is too far back unfortunately. Maybe worth a rookie pick for GWS if he can finish the season off well being a couple of years older and having the flexibility to play a number of different positions makes him an interesting prospect for them. Certainly less bad than many of the Gold Coast rookie prospects (ala. N.Ablett + J.Tippett). But view many of the state leaguers as stronger prospects.

 

[TradeDraft]

GWS is such an unknown. Will be interesting to see what they can get. Very unclear at this stage. But they will go for whatever gets what they view as the greatest value.

Agree with TD on Reed. In his 3rd season would want to break through for some senior games. Showed some good signs last year. But is too far back unfortunately. Maybe worth a rookie pick for GWS if he can finish the season off well being a couple of years older and having the flexibility to play a number of different positions makes him an interesting prospect for them. Certainly less bad than many of the Gold Coast rookie prospects (ala. N.Ablett + J.Tippett). But view many of the state leaguers as stronger prospects.

Reed is to Vanilla for me and I can't see him improving our Side and List

 

[TradeDraft]

I think Wood is in the Side until we find a Good 2nd Ruckman as I just don't think he can make it at AFL Level any more

 

[shawthing09]

Reed is to Vanilla for me and I can't see him improving our Side and List

Long way to go though. If for example Goldsack ended up requesting a trade / walking a guy like Reed would add to our depth. I think he has enough upside and commitment to be a handy role player.

 

[TradeDraft]

Long way to go though. If for example Goldsack ended up requesting a trade / walking a guy like Reed would add to our depth. I think he has enough upside and commitment to be a handy role player.

Well that could be an Option and Yes he could make it as an Okay Role Player who comes in and out of the Side. I just can't see him being in our Best 22

 

[Knightmare]

Long way to go though. If for example Goldsack ended up requesting a trade / walking a guy like Reed would add to our depth. I think he has enough upside and commitment to be a handy role player.

The thing Reed adds is versatility. Doesn't look out of place anywhere. Looked great up forward last year and has when placed down back also been handy.

The thing that Reed needs to add to his game, and has for a while is tackling. Without it he just doesn't feel like a natural fit into the Collingwood system.

Handy depth. And again ability to play the number of positions helps him. But of all the rookies due to age really hard to see him retained. (This is 3rd year on rookie list, so would need to be upgraded to senior list at seasons end which I don't see happening now).

If you look down the depth chart I don't think many have him into the top 30, and around that top 35 area which for a 3rd year player even with versatility isn't quite enough unless he does something unbelieveable in the 2nd half of the season to suggest that he could potentially become a best 22 player down the track. There are enough VFL players even who could easily replace and be an upgrade on Reed, which in fairness is more a reflection of the high standard the VFL is played at.

But I do think we will increasingly look at drafting those versatile 190cm types as well as medium and smaller defenders to add to the backline depth after targeting the forwards last offseason.

 

[TradeDraft]

Collingwood's 2011 Draft/Trade Thread

With the U-18 Champs Starting this weekend I thought we might as well get this Thread Started.



Found this on Draft Board:

Bookmark this:

Collingwood is heavily into Taylor Adams.
Buckley is a huge fan of this kid from his days coaching the U/16 team.
I know Hine makes these calls, but this is a kid I know Buckley seriously wants.

Does anyone know anymore of this?

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21133954&postcount=296

 

[half_back_flank]

Re: Collingwood's 2011 Draft/Trade Thread

Interesting Dave, got any information on the kid?