List Mgmt. Collingwood Trade Talk 2016

Status
Not open for further replies.

4#Didak#4

Premiership Player
Joined
May 21, 2007
Posts
3,554
Likes
2,568
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Collingwood
I would like us to start trading and drafting on more of a needs basis. The last two years I have been puzzled by our lack of interest in a couple of players who were very gettable.

One was Jeff Garlett two years ago, who had his issues at the time, but fitted the bill (and still does) for exactly what we need in our forward line. A super quick, goal kicking forward who can apply pressure and use the ball intelligently. We still are without a small forward who can do this and seem uninterested in finding one when it continues to be a glaring deficiency. Garlett went to Melbourne for a couple of very late draft picks.

The other was Suckling. He was the best available kicking half back. Exactly what we are bemoaning not having right now. The improvement and impact Sucking could have had is huge, from the kick outs to general ball movement out of half back. Arguably the best kick in the game. And we show no interest? Now I know we had our eyes and attention on Treloar and Aish and Howe trades that took a lot of working out, but Sucking was a free agent. Salary cap issues there may have been but I am pretty sure Aish & Howe are on very nice money. I saw him as an ideal fit.

I am aware we have a number of half backs including Maynard, Ramsay and Scharenburg and it was impossible to forsee two getting ACLs but nonetheless Suckling still would be the preferred ball user off half back and his experience would be invaluable. Pairing him with Reid and Scharenburg would have elevated our ball use to a first class level.

I just think we need to be more intelligent with the players we target, sometimes it may mean walking past a very good player to take a less credentialled player. The selection needs to be made based on their ability to influence the team not on their individual attributes. I think we have been in "best available" mode too long. The last time we targeted "needs basis" players we won a flag.

In a more general need sense we need to start putting a premium on player who can kick. Hawthorn as we know have done this for years. They do not take anyone who has poor foot skills period. Whether this be draft or trade. We need to do the same as the overall quality of out foot skills is a fail. Any new players coming in need to improve on this and out going players will be the ones that do not stack up.

I like Levi Greenwood but his foot skills are not good enough, it was an error to get him despite his ball winning ability. At the same time we swapped Varcoe for Harry and this is a perfect example of what we should do. Any first or second round draft picks need to have a decent kick on them as a prerequisite. Later picks the elite kicks are just not there and you pick them for other qualities, but those early picks need to be very good by foot. Maynard, DeGoey, Moore and Scharenburg are all fine in this regard, so I think this is happening anyway.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Soups

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Posts
11,493
Likes
15,789
AFL Club
Collingwood
I would like us to start trading and drafting on more of a needs basis. The last two years I have been puzzled by our lack of interest in a couple of players who were very gettable.

One was Jeff Garlett two years ago, who had his issues at the time, but fitted the bill (and still does) for exactly what we need in our forward line. A super quick, goal kicking forward who can apply pressure and use the ball intelligently. We still are without a small forward who can do this and seem uninterested in finding one when it continues to be a glaring deficiency. Garlett went to Melbourne for a couple of very late draft picks.

The other was Suckling. He was the best available kicking half back. Exactly what we are bemoaning not having right now. The improvement and impact Sucking could have had is huge, from the kick outs to general ball movement out of half back. Arguably the best kick in the game. And we show no interest? Now I know we had our eyes and attention on Treloar and Aish and Howe trades that took a lot of working out, but Sucking was a free agent. Salary cap issues there may have been but I am pretty sure Aish & Howe are on very nice money. I saw him as an ideal fit.

I am aware we have a number of half backs including Maynard, Ramsay and Scharenburg and it was impossible to forsee two getting ACLs but nonetheless Suckling still would be the preferred ball user off half back and his experience would be invaluable. Pairing him with Reid and Scharenburg would have elevated our ball use to a first class level.

I just think we need to be more intelligent with the players we target, sometimes it may mean walking past a very good player to take a less credentialled player. The selection needs to be made based on their ability to influence the team not on their individual attributes. I think we have been in "best available" mode too long. The last time we targeted "needs basis" players we won a flag.

In a more general need sense we need to start putting a premium on player who can kick. Hawthorn as we know have done this for years. They do not take anyone who has poor foot skills period. Whether this be draft or trade. We need to do the same as the overall quality of out foot skills is a fail. Any new players coming in need to improve on this and out going players will be the ones that do not stack up.

I like Levi Greenwood but his foot skills are not good enough, it was an error to get him despite his ball winning ability. At the same time we swapped Varcoe for Harry and this is a perfect example of what we should do. Any first or second round draft picks need to have a decent kick on them as a prerequisite. Later picks the elite kicks are just not there and you pick them for other qualities, but those early picks need to be very good by foot. Maynard, DeGoey, Moore and Scharenburg are all fine in this regard, so I think this is happening anyway.
Very well said! Hine is very good at identifying draft talent but we have been lacking in trading in players for too long now and it's starting to cost is IMO. If a couple of draft picks go bust and we haven't traded in any mature talent we are really start to lack in certain areas.

This is where Wells and Wright have such an edge in the recruiting department.
 

Scodog10

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Posts
17,139
Likes
24,181
Location
The Linc
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Oakland Raiders
Is this true Sco?
Don't know image won't load.

Double dipping from a list mgmt perspective is bringing in a FA whilst trading a player of similar standard.

Effectively you maintain list quality by the traded player and FA cancelling out, but you get the opportunity to "double dip" with the draft pick you generate from the trade.
 

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Posts
10,144
Likes
12,775
Location
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
Really shitty we didnt grab Suckling and Garlett.
You can't get everyone. We've traded in some pretty good players over the last couple of years. And these two both have/had question marks. Suckling is slow and soft. Garlett was absolutely awful the year before he went to Melbourne.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Soups

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Posts
11,493
Likes
15,789
AFL Club
Collingwood
You can't get everyone. We've traded in some pretty good players over the last couple of years. And these two both have/had question marks. Suckling is slow and soft. Garlett was absolutely awful the year before he went to Melbourne.
I think the point was that we haven't really rolled the dice with a few players hoping they come off. Who knows what would have happened we could have got those two players in and they could have been duds. We tend to go with a safe option. Which is perfectly fine.

Imagine if we got Mitch Clark :/
 

TradeDraft

Premium Gold
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Posts
117,318
Likes
47,485
Location
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
Collingwood
You can't get everyone. We've traded in some pretty good players over the last couple of years. And these two both have/had question marks. Suckling is slow and soft. Garlett was absolutely awful the year before he went to Melbourne.
Garlett last year at Carlton was like Aish's last year at Brisbane. They where mentally checked out
 

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Posts
10,144
Likes
12,775
Location
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
I think the point was that we haven't really rolled the dice with a few players hoping they come off. Who knows what would have happened we could have got those two players in and they could have been duds. We tend to go with a safe option. Which is perfectly fine.

Imagine if we got Mitch Clark :/
We've been pretty active with our dice rolling over the last 2 years, during the time that Suckling and Garlett moved:
Greenwood, Varcoe, Crisp, Howe, Aish, Treloar.
 

4#Didak#4

Premiership Player
Joined
May 21, 2007
Posts
3,554
Likes
2,568
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Collingwood
I think the point was that we haven't really rolled the dice with a few players hoping they come off. Who knows what would have happened we could have got those two players in and they could have been duds. We tend to go with a safe option. Which is perfectly fine.

Imagine if we got Mitch Clark :/
We've been pretty active with our dice rolling over the last 2 years, during the time that Suckling and Garlett moved:
Greenwood, Varcoe, Crisp, Howe, Aish, Treloar.

I don't think its about rolling the dice. Its about being calculated about what you are doing.

I don't see anything safe in getting Howe and Aish in. We paid a price for guys that are essentially cream. I like what they have to offer, both will be good players but I didn't really see them as players who will change results for us or improve what we have greatly. So yes we get two nice players but do they win us more games? Maybe we thought we had the cattle already and it was time for some cream? These guys don't fill the holes in our list, individually I like them as players, but in the big picture not so much.

Greenwood is a foot soldier and I admire the way he plays but I can't see him being a player that will take us forward with the foot skills and speed he has.

Crisp was a little forced upon us and given the Beams situation there weren't many options so I accept that. Varcoe is perfect, Treloar is a jet.

The thing with Garlett and Suckling is that it is not rolling the dice or that risky. To get them was simple and costs little in return, so if it does fail its not a drama. If Aish, Greenwood or Howe fails its a drama due to their cost. So we are taking more risk on players that don't improve us greatly at their best versus low risk trades on players that can improve us greatly at their best.

I find the choice of Howe over Suckling very troubling.

Let me give you a choice of two fictional players to demonstrate the point:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two players with similar number of games and experience.

Player A is a premiership player from a successful environment struggling for opportunities in the best team of the last decade, multiple finals and big game player, playing in a position and with a skill set you need.

Player B is from a club that has barely won games in the last decade, he was unable to consolidate his position in the team, he will play in a position that is a little non-descript and but can take a hanger.

Player A form a dollar point of view may cost a little more than Player B but nothing staggering.

Player A I will give you for nothing. Thats right nothing.

Player B I want you to give me two guys that will play in my best 22 in positions that you are short on (lets say small forward and running half back).

Which do you select?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A team is a bit like an engine, you can have all the best components in an engine but sometimes if you are missing just one boring seemingly insignificant component that fancy engine won't start and won't get you far.
 

mike123

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Posts
26,598
Likes
23,018
AFL Club
Collingwood
I think Aish was the right choice we need players that can kick the footy but I don't like the role he's been given.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two players with similar number of games and experience.

Player A is a premiership player from a successful environment has been best 22 in the best team of the last decade, multiple finals and big game player, playing in a position and with a skill set you need.

Player B is from a club that has barely won games in the last decade, he was also best 22 the team, he will play in a position that is a little non-descript and but can take a hanger.

Player A form a dollar point of view may cost a little more than Player B but nothing staggering.

Player A I will give you for nothing. Thats right nothing.

Player B I want you to give me two guys that will play in may be best 22 in positions that you are short on (lets say small forward and running half back).

Which do you select?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this is slightly more accurate.

I would take Suckling over Howe, but I don't think we would have got him anyways. He knew the coach Beveridge and the dogs made finals.
 

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Posts
10,144
Likes
12,775
Location
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two players with similar number of games and experience.

Player A is a premiership player from a successful environment struggling for opportunities in the best team of the last decade, multiple finals and big game player, playing in a position and with a skill set you need.

Player B is from a club that has barely won games in the last decade, he was unable to consolidate his position in the team, he will play in a position that is a little non-descript and but can take a hanger.

Player A form a dollar point of view may cost a little more than Player B but nothing staggering.

Player A I will give you for nothing. Thats right nothing.

Player B I want you to give me two guys that will play in my best 22 in positions that you are short on (lets say small forward and running half back).

Which do you select?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Is player A soft and slow?
Is player B the better player?
Were the two guys we gave outside our best 22?

If the answer is yes to all 3 of these questions. I'll have player B thanks.
 

TW Sherrin

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 7, 2014
Posts
11,118
Likes
10,790
Location
?
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
49ers
Suckling and jeffy are one way players. Neither can or do defend. Jeffy less of an issue but Suckling is horrible man on man. He might kick well but he has lots of warts.

If your partner has an awesome body but is crap in bed that ain't going to last.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom