List Mgmt. COLLINGWOOD Trade & FA 2024

[jmac70]

Yeah. Tough 2 Weeks for sure but we won the whole thing only a few games back.

We are spoilt as fans of this great club.

 

[No SPIN]

The answer isn’t yes or no
There’s context

It’s not flawed if

• you achieve the result you need (a shot at the flag)
• they play for for a number of years and contribute
• you pay fair price

It is if

• it prevents your ability to trade in top-line talent
• it prevents you from drafting high quality talent if you slide down the ladder
• it prevents you from using the pick to trade up or into following year for high end talent

My feeling is this, and I wrote this in a number of posts during the trade period past
You have to trade both in and out at true value

Others can have diff opinions, that’s fine, I just hated the cost. Very happy to have Schultz. But I’d have walked away from the trade if a future first had to be included.
We could have used the 2nd we drafted out to secure Collard - if he buys in we have a great player for years, if he wants out we get a return on our investment from the teams he requests a trade to — and we still have a new forward speed / pressure option

I’d always make this clear to players we’re interest in. We’ll do everything in our power to get them in, but there’s a point that their existing club may insist upon that we can’t meet

I was furious at the Ollie trade - I’d have walked away
We’d have got Titch somehow, Hawks wanted him gone
I was furious at Ginni trade

Our trading in 22 was so good bc we paid value / slightly overs (perceived at the time) - but the picks traded out didn’t inhibit our future trading / drafting

Edit. FWIW, I still think we’ll make finals, still think we have a good team.
My beef is with the trade in / trade out values over the past 10 years

GW era is far more positive- on balance you should have no issue with his trades.
Ollie - no Club stands firm or walks away anymore
Ginni - limited player on many levels, with no patience or resilience to play VFL to earn a spot.

 

[SchuPie]

GW era is far more positive- on balance you should have no issue with his trades.
Ollie - no Club stands firm or walks away anymore
Ginni - limited player on many levels, with no patience or resilience to play VFL to earn a spot.

GW era is lot more positive - and I do like that he gets the trades done
Having said that, it’s just my opinion, it doesn’t mean anything but I don’t look at the trades as a whole, just bc one trade period is very good means that we excuse the cost of other trades (remember, this has nothing to do w Schultz, it’s about evaluating all the factors in a trade)

yep, clubs don’t walk away, but imo, we should have from the Ollie trade
Ginni unders and we let our position be known

I mostly agree w you NS, but I still have issue w our point of sale transactions regardless of the end result

 

[manicpie]

I don't think our first pick this year is going to get us a potential gun tall forward . Taking Schultz is a much better option for the now. A KF in this year's draft is going to take years to come good. Our picks have been bad the last few years and we done an amazing job winning the flag. We just haven't had the picks the last few years, so keeping our window open is very important

 

[Jen2310]

We're probably lucky that there are no real forwards at the top end of the draft. Its known this will be a mid draft.
Next year and beyond we will want to keep our 1st though.

 

[Apex36]

The schultz trade, what we gave up will only be bad if we miss finals, so hopefully we can turn it around.

It’ll pretty much be bad if we’re anything less than top 4.

 

[Jen2310]

It’ll pretty much be bad if we’re anything less than top 4.

I cant see top 4 atm and def out of reach if we're 1-4, unless we turn it around quick.
Would need 16 wins for top 4. 13-14 for top 8 depending on percentage and other sides.

If we can do 3-3 that would be acceptable, which means winning thur, hawks and prob the port game

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

To put these 2 losses into perspective..Giants lost 10 matches last year & only missed playing in a GF by a point against the reigning premiers.

Keep the faith Pies.

 

[Ugene41]

Exactly.

You have to have an outlier season to win a flag, so if you have a team capable of winning one, and the opportunity presents to pick up a player who clearly is best-22 for you, for a first-round pick which is likely late, it’s more than justifiable.

That doesn’t even take into consideration that you could slide down the ladder, get an early pick and still get a Scharenberg or Freeman.

And that at Schultz’ age, he should still play for us for a long time.

That philosophy makes sense except it doesn't consider opportunity cost.

By bending over to acquire a B-grade Schultz, we now don't have the trade capital this year to target any other A-graders ie Bailey Smith, JUH, Holmes etc.

It was also in an area (small forward) where we already had an abundance of talent. So much so that we had to trade out a talented young player in Ginnivan who still had massive unexplored upside.

It we had traded out our first and second for a KPP that was an upgrade on Johnson/Dean/Frampton/Cox then that could make sense and would've made us much better than an upgrade on Ginnivan. And it's still TBD whether Schultz will be better than Ginnivan given his potential.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

That philosophy makes sense except it doesn't consider opportunity cost.

By bending over to acquire a B-grade Schultz, we now don't have the trade capital this year to target any other A-graders ie Bailey Smith, JUH, Holmes etc.

It was also in an area (small forward) where we already had an abundance of talent. So much so that we had to trade out a talented young player in Ginnivan who still had massive unexplored upside.

It we had traded out our first and second for a KPP that was an upgrade on Johnson/Dean/Frampton/Cox then that could make sense and would've made us much better than an upgrade on Ginnivan. And it's still TBD whether Schultz will be better than Ginnivan given his potential.

That’s not true, it does consider opportunity cost, although I only mentioned what we could acquire in the draft as opposed to future trade.

It obviously depends on what talent you consider likely to be available, and how they grade the talent internally. You’re essentially saying we shouldn’t trade in Schultz now because we may be able to trade in JUH/Holmes/Smith etc. later. Maybe we don’t consider JUH gettable, or maybe we think Schultz for his combined (trade price + salary cap %) is worth similarly or more than Smith at his (on projection).

I am choosing to think of it as using up a likely late first to repay the likes of Pendlebury, Sidebottom and Howe while they still have a little more gas in the tank. I like Schultz as a player, I like what he brings, and I like how he fits into our gamestyle under Fly… and he’s not a short-term acquisition, he should be a mainstay now for a long while.

 

[Go Woods]

To put these 2 losses into perspective..Giants lost 10 matches last year & only missed playing in a GF by a point against the reigning premiers.

Keep the faith Pies.

Looks like we're playing the long game.
Reckon we don't kick into gear until midseason.
Hoping we're sitting at worst 6-5 win/loss at the half way point.

 

[Doc1763]

To put these 2 losses into perspective..Giants lost 10 matches last year & only missed playing in a GF by a point against the reigning premiers.

Keep the faith Pies.

both Carlton & GWS were 4-8. GWS won the next week to go 5-8 Carlton lost to to 4-9. It could conceivably have been a GWS-Carlton Grand Final.

As a wise old man once said, its a marathon, not a sprint.

He also said the Earth is slow, but the Fly is patient, or words to that effect.

 

[Apex36]

I cant see top 4 atm and def out of reach if we're 1-4, unless we turn it around quick.
Would need 16 wins for top 4. 13-14 for top 8 depending on percentage and other sides.

If we can do 3-3 that would be acceptable, which means winning thur, hawks and prob the port game

End of H&A is meaningless in regards to draft position, so that’s not a worry. The worry is making finals first, and then making the prelim as a minimum after that.

 

[Jen2310]

End of H&A is meaningless in regards to draft position, so that’s not a worry. The worry is making finals first, and then making the prelim as a minimum after that.

Making finals is what, 14 wins? We'll need to make up a lot of percentage when we do start winning. fair few teams have a jump already.

 

[Apex36]

Making finals is what, 14 wins? We'll need to make up a lot of percentage when we do start winning. fair few teams have a jump already.

We’re 2 games in to the year, making up percentage at this point isn’t a worry. A few wins on the board will change that number dramatically.

 

[Stronzatello]

The same guy who won us a premiership by trading to get Bobby Hill?

Narrow minded, short-sighted crap is what makes Collingwood supporters the laughing stock. You are one of those. What’s Hill got to do with Schultz?

 

[Stronzatello]

GW era is lot more positive - and I do like that he gets the trades done
Having said that, it’s just my opinion, it doesn’t mean anything but I don’t look at the trades as a whole, just bc one trade period is very good means that we excuse the cost of other trades (remember, this has nothing to do w Schultz, it’s about evaluating all the factors in a trade)

yep, clubs don’t walk away, but imo, we should have from the Ollie trade
Ginni unders and we let our position be known

I mostly agree w you NS, but I still have issue w our point of sale transactions regardless of the end result

Spot on!!!

 

[danielnajdek]

Narrow minded, short-sighted crap is what makes Collingwood supporters the laughing stock. You are one of those. What’s Hill got to do with Schultz?

You were taking a shot at Graham Wright. Duh.

 

[Bianconeri]

Narrow minded, short-sighted crap is what makes Collingwood supporters the laughing stock. You are one of those. What’s Hill got to do with Schultz?

The irony is lost on you here

 

[sr36]

GW era is lot more positive - and I do like that he gets the trades done
Having said that, it’s just my opinion, it doesn’t mean anything but I don’t look at the trades as a whole, just bc one trade period is very good means that we excuse the cost of other trades (remember, this has nothing to do w Schultz, it’s about evaluating all the factors in a trade)

yep, clubs don’t walk away, but imo, we should have from the Ollie trade
Ginni unders and we let our position be known

I mostly agree w you NS, but I still have issue w our point of sale transactions regardless of the end result

My take is more positive.

Ollie one was tough. We got unders but do you try to keep a bloke who is so adamant that he doesn't want to be there? Not trading either got us nothing or the potential of a disgruntled player.

No idea how good Schultz is, but if the pundits are right, we got above par return for a pick you'd value in the mid to high teens and also bolstered our current team whilst in the window.

Hawthorn are s**t. I think the value for Ginni was fine and that we'll get an early second round pick which will be handy.

 

[adammania9]

Hoping Ginni goes well over there, but remember Stephenson had 33 and a goal in his first game for North.

We did miss Ginnivan in a sense the other night, in that he has the uncommon trait in small forwards that he can kick goals against the flow of the game. A supreme opportunist.

 

[Fat Jesus]

Schultz best 22 in any team.
Elite.

 

[memoryofmchale]

Schultz best 22 in any team.
Elite.

He won't be dropped. There are others who'd be in the firing line before him.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

He won't be dropped. There are others who'd be in the firing line before him.

No one thinks Schultz will be dropped.

 

[Kappa]

To put these 2 losses into perspective..Giants lost 10 matches last year & only missed playing in a GF by a point against the reigning premiers.

Keep the faith Pies.

It's not the 0-2 that's the problem, the problem is that both our opponents completely dismantled us and we looked terrible in the forward line and defense.

Time is running out to fix things, we won't make the top 4 if we start 0-4.