List Mgmt. COLLINGWOOD Trade & FA 2024

[Carlthetruth]

not at odds with just the price.

i woulda:

• kept the future 1st and gone for best available mid in the 2024 draft
• kept #34 (2023) and picked up any of Luamon Lual (went #39), Ollie Murphy (went #41), Zane Zakostelsky (went #51)

Lual, Murphy and Zakostelsky, what an uninspiring trio, the fact you you would want to draft these players in a weak crop says it all.

 

[sam_e]

Lual, Murphy and Zakostelsky, what an uninspiring trio, the fact you you would want to draft these players in a weak crop says it all.

'uninspiring trio' for three first year players yet to debut and taken after pick34 tells me you're clueless.

in addition to a future first, also yet to debut, that's also been handed over ..perhaps he's also uninspiring.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

34 + future 1st (lets say we win it ..18)

ie. best case scenario (if we win in 2024) it'll be pick 34 (2023) and pick 18 (2024). if we finish lower, then the 2024 pick is lower (better).

It wouldn't be pick 18. More like pick 23. Look what happened to our 1st rounder last year.
Just checked our 1st rounder was pick 25 last year.
Maybe Harry will be a gun but I would prefer Schultz over Harry and pick 34.

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

It would be pick 18. More like pick 23. Look what happened to our pick 1st rounder last year.

Don’t bother mate. Clearly every draft pick is a hit!!

Really not worth trading.

 

[sr36]

geezus, everyone is buying into Hiney's inability to pick up decent talent within the first 20 of the national draft.

like i said, give him his gold watch and move forward.

we should be looking to do both: pick the eyes outtta the draft using at least our 1st rounder, leveraging 2nd /3rd rounders to trade in value (Hill, Frampers, WHE etc) and go to work in the $2 bin of rooks, Cat B and SSP.

It's not just Hine. Less than half the picks between 11 and 20 play 100 games.

 

[Ugene41]

It's not just Hine. Less than half the picks between 11 and 20 play 100 games.

Agree with this. But also it's no foregone conclusion that trading in an experienced recruit like Schultz plays 100 games for us. Out of all the ~26 year olds we've traded in recent history, only Howe has given us over 100 games as I recall. None of Varcoe, Greenwood, Luke Ball, Medhurst made it to 100 games for us. Neither did the two players in Treloar/Beams 2.0 that we sold the farm in terms of first round picks to acquire. So trading could even be worse odds.

Also just because it might be a 50% chance of hitting a top 20 draft pick right, it's still worth it because those hits could end up being better than what you can trade for.

Everyone lauds Geelong's recruitment and ability to stay relevant contending. In recent times as they've had to transition from an aging list, they've generally kept their first rounders or only traded them for recent first rounders like Bruhn. For every Max Holmes they recruit with pick 20, they draft a Cooper Stevens with pick 16 the year prior. But it's still worth it to have a few chances to draft a Max Holmes. Hine has a similar hit rate. Just in the 2020 draft, even if Macrae (still TBD for me) is a bust, Henry was clearly a hit.

 

[SchuPie]

Agree with this. But also it's no foregone conclusion that trading in an experienced recruit like Schultz plays 100 games for us. Out of all the ~26 year olds we've traded in recent history, only Howe has given us over 100 games as I recall. None of Varcoe, Greenwood, Luke Ball, Medhurst made it to 100 games for us. Neither did the two players in Treloar/Beams 2.0 that we sold the farm in terms of first round picks to acquire. So trading could even be worse odds.

Also just because it might be a 50% chance of hitting a top 20 draft pick right, it's still worth it because those hits could end up being better than what you can trade for.

Everyone lauds Geelong's recruitment and ability to stay relevant contending. In recent times as they've had to transition from an aging list, they've generally kept their first rounders or only traded them for recent first rounders like Bruhn. For every Max Holmes they recruit with pick 20, they draft a Cooper Stevens with pick 16 the year prior. But it's still worth it to have a few chances to draft a Max Holmes. Hine has a similar hit rate. Just in the 2020 draft, even if Macrae (still TBD for me) is a bust, Henry was clearly a hit.

It's the future first that is the issue
(although I'll always be of the belief that we didn't need to, and should have, paid what we did.)

When you trade a future first you are

• dealing an unknown value (remember when pick 2 ended up at the Giants!! FMD)
• You have a pretty good idea of who will be around your first pick in the current year - future picks you have no idea what you are trading away
• You are dealing away opportunity: the pick may be used to trade up / trade back for multiple picks / trade into future years / and, probably most importantly, used as currency for bringing in high-end talent

This debate about about who we may or may not take with that future first pick, is not the issue, it is it's adaptability in the entire drafting / trading process.

There's a few people who don't want Schultz, some think he'll part of delivering next flag -- for me it really doesn't have anything to do with him - it's the inability to get the trade done for less or to walk away from trades that get too expensive.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Also just because it might be a 50% chance of hitting a top 20 draft pick right, it's still worth it because those hits could end up being better than what you can trade for.

The newly drafted player could be a better player but not until at least 2026. We get Schultz playing good footy in 2024. We just won a premiership in 2023 and it was worth trading in a known player who suits our high pressure game plan to keep that premiership window slightly ajar.
And like you said the drafted player only has a 50% chance of making it, while Schultz is 100% sure to play if he isn't injured or suspended.
I don't disagree with what you are saying, however the premiership window changes all of that. It's worth the cost.

 

[Ugene41]

geezus, everyone is buying into Hiney's inability to pick up decent talent within the first 20 of the national draft.

like i said, give him his gold watch and move forward.

we should be looking to do both: pick the eyes outtta the draft using at least our 1st rounder, leveraging 2nd /3rd rounders to trade in value (Hill, Frampers, WHE etc) and go to work in the $2 bin of rooks, Cat B and SSP.

Agree with your strategy in the last paragraph but disagree on Hine. His success rate with the top 20 is on par if not better than other recruiters in terms of hit rate. If one of Allan/Demattia makes it, that continues

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

It's the future first that is the issue
(although I'll always be of the belief that we didn't need to, and should have, paid what we did.)

When you trade a future first you are

• dealing an unknown value (remember when pick 2 ended up at the Giants!! FMD)
• You have a pretty good idea of who will be around your first pick in the current year - future picks you have no idea what you are trading away
• You are dealing away opportunity: the pick may be used to trade up / trade back for multiple picks / trade into future years / and, probably most importantly, used as currency for bringing in high-end talent

This debate about about who we may or may not take with that future first pick, is not the issue, it is it's adaptability in the entire drafting / trading process.

There's a few people who don't want Schultz, some think he'll part of delivering next flag -- for me it really doesn't have anything to do with him - it's the inability to get the trade done for less or to walk away from trades that get too expensive.

I was very upset at trading the future pick 2 for a couple picks in the 20-30 range. I thought it was a move by the club to cover up the disaster of losing Treloar, Stephenson and Philips for next to nothing with a few shiny draft picks/ players.
It ended up being a worse trade than what we got for the players we lost in 2020.
So I agree I don't like to trade future picks either.
However I feel that there is an exception, which is being in the premiership window. I feel we made the right call to bring Schultz in and when we try to bring players in we try to do the right thing and not stuff around and just get the trade done. We did that.
Could it back fire? Sure could. However premiers usually finish in the top 6 teams the following year and if that happens then we have payed fair price in my eyes.
You disagree and fair enough.

 

[stormskye]

It's not just Hine. Less than half the picks between 11 and 20 play 100 games.

Please don’t bring facts to the discussion . We traded Harley Reid for Schultz. End of

 

[well left]

It's the future first that is the issue
(although I'll always be of the belief that we didn't need to, and should have, paid what we did.)

When you trade a future first you are

• dealing an unknown value (remember when pick 2 ended up at the Giants!! FMD)
• You have a pretty good idea of who will be around your first pick in the current year - future picks you have no idea what you are trading away
• You are dealing away opportunity: the pick may be used to trade up / trade back for multiple picks / trade into future years / and, probably most importantly, used as currency for bringing in high-end talent

This debate about about who we may or may not take with that future first pick, is not the issue, it is it's adaptability in the entire drafting / trading process.

There's a few people who don't want Schultz, some think he'll part of delivering next flag -- for me it really doesn't have anything to do with him - it's the inability to get the trade done for less or to walk away from trades that get too expensive.

Agree on the future first trading part but there’s some caveats with it for me.

I was against trading the future first when we had the fire sale as there was some unpredictability to where we’d finish the next season and with Nick coming through I would have waited and played our cards later the next year. There was too much variability in that situation.

Last year we’re coming off the flag and have Pendles, Sidey, Howe, Cox at the end so it made some sense to me to trade now if you think it gets you something you need to go back to back. I’m not sure Schultz was necessarily what we needed but he also gives us 5+ seasons more than likely.

It looks now that it’s unlikely to cost us a top 10 pick so I’m ok with that one but in general terms I don’t like trading a future first unless you are at the end of your flag run and looking to buy one more chance.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[sr36]

Agree with this. But also it's no foregone conclusion that trading in an experienced recruit like Schultz plays 100 games for us. Out of all the ~26 year olds we've traded in recent history, only Howe has given us over 100 games as I recall. None of Varcoe, Greenwood, Luke Ball, Medhurst made it to 100 games for us. Neither did the two players in Treloar/Beams 2.0 that we sold the farm in terms of first round picks to acquire. So trading could even be worse odds.

Also just because it might be a 50% chance of hitting a top 20 draft pick right, it's still worth it because those hits could end up being better than what you can trade for.

Everyone lauds Geelong's recruitment and ability to stay relevant contending. In recent times as they've had to transition from an aging list, they've generally kept their first rounders or only traded them for recent first rounders like Bruhn. For every Max Holmes they recruit with pick 20, they draft a Cooper Stevens with pick 16 the year prior. But it's still worth it to have a few chances to draft a Max Holmes. Hine has a similar hit rate. Just in the 2020 draft, even if Macrae (still TBD for me) is a bust, Henry was clearly a hit.

Yes, a simple games played measure isn't very accurate, you've got to somehow evaluate quality of games for draft picks versus recruits - god knows how you do it when we can't yet accurately evaluate or agree on a players contribution to success.

I don't agree with you on the Cats example. When they were in our position, with some genuine stars with a fair bit ahead of them, they were trading out first round picks for mature players to stay up.

I would love us to be able to do what the Cats did with Ollie and Bruhn, but I think that's peculiar to Geelong. They've got the Falcons factory. Years of wooing kids. So when Ollie and Bruhn requested trades, it was Geelong or nothing, which changes the whole trade dynamic. When we were chasing Adams and Treloar, it's was for them to return to Vic - thete were other clubs part of the conversation so it effects the trade price.

My comment was more in defence of our drafting and the suggestion that we shouldn't be having misses in tat range.

 

[Carlthetruth]

Don’t bother mate. Clearly every draft pick is a hit!!

Really not worth trading.

But we could have had Lual, Murphy or Zakolstelsky, 195 ruckmen are all the rage! Seriously deluded with the Shooter hate blinding.

 

[satanshoof101]

But we could have had Lual, Murphy or Zakolstelsky, 195 ruckmen are all the rage! Seriously deluded with the Shooter hate blinding.

It is not too deluded, while I agree that most of those picks are upside picks, DeMattia is playing in a position we are packed full of.

Lual is playing the same position as DeMattia but you don't have to use a first rounder on him same with an Archie Roberts but I understand DeMattia will eventually play in the midfield or wing.

Using the future 1st compared to our current pick 25 and 34 might end up being steep.

ZZ was worth a punt as a defender and back up ruck considering he would not have cost much to get back in to that part of the draft. He is 196cm but similar to a Blicavs or Hayes (STK) type of ruckman.

You really need to do both draft and trade and keeping the window open for longer can jeopardise future success. I know we won the flag last year but ignoring the draft can have its own problems.

Let's say there is a Connor O'Sullivan or Dan Curtin I am sure we would sell a lot of players and draft picks for one of them and that is just defenders let alone we need another midfielder and a key forward succession plan. Not saying all this is done through the draft or trading alone.


Edit: Let's say we get none of Smith, LDU, McCluggage then the next best is the money ball (which literally every club is trying to achieve) or draftees.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Don't forget that our 1st we traded out this year will behind quite a few nominated father sons and possible academy picks, even more so if they change the bidding rules. Not to mention players like McCluggage and English who would get 1st round compo if they leave.
Younger Ashcroft, Camporelle twins and a few more should go very early. Pick 10 could end up pick 15 and pick 15 could blow out to an early 20 pick.

 

[Johno9911]

Seen a bit of Richmond this year - Ben Miller is developing into a very solid KPD, having failed as a ruck/FWD early in his career and been shifted back. Great size at 198cm and his defensive craft has really improved

OOC and an UFA at the end of the year, he’d be a great option to pickup if looking to add another defensive piece without giving up trade capital

 

[whiskeytown]

Another ripping game from Ned Moyle…

17 disp, 34 hit outs, 9 clearances, 2 goals

Easily the best ruck prospect around.

I’d be offering him a straight up 3 year deal and GC the pies 2nd round pick

Might seem overs for a kid with only a few AFL games…

but he’s a 10 year ruck for whoever gets him

 

[Jen2310]

Another ripping game from Ned Moyle…

17 disp, 34 hit outs, 9 clearances, 2 goals

Easily the best ruck prospect around.

I’d be offering him a straight up 3 year deal and GC the pies 2nd round pick

Might seem overs for a kid with only a few AFL games…

but he’s a 10 year ruck for whoever gets him

About to come talk about that lol
He is now playing as a ruck/forward and getting on the scoreboard

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Another ripping game from Ned Moyle…

17 disp, 34 hit outs, 9 clearances, 2 goals

Easily the best ruck prospect around.

I’d be offering him a straight up 3 year deal and GC the pies 2nd round pick

Might seem overs for a kid with only a few AFL games…

but he’s a 10 year ruck for whoever gets him

You've convinced me. Where do I sign?

 

[gouki88]

If Moyle can keep clunking them and kicking goals I am going to get even bigger hopes we're in his ear. Reverse Witts time.

Would also allow Cameron to get bashed a little bit less each week.

 

[Gabbo64]

The flag is there for the taking this year. If we get top 4, we can beat anyone. Plenty of concerns for both melb and Geelong

Reckon we can win it anywhere from 1st-8th. I'd prefer top 4 of course, but we can beat anyone, anytime.

 

[Do_Beta_Rapport]

I’d like to get CJ from the Hawks and unite him with his bro at the Pies.

Now is the time. Out of contract, injured/not playing.

Way too hard otherwise, look at Khamis at the Doggies. We missed him last year, won’t be able to get him now.

 

[No SPIN]

Glutton for punishment.

Rumour that Draper at Ess was not injured, but dropped for disciplinary action, due to revealing the disquiet at WB and naming a number of players who’ll be seeking a trade if Bevo stays.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Rumour that Draper at Ess was not injured, but dropped for disciplinary action, due to revealing the disquiet at WB and naming a number of players who’ll be seeking a trade if Bevo stays.

Yep, that's the rumour.