Death-riding Port

[captainrich]

I must admit that on the bus home last night I did think of this thread and the fact that it was Polec who gave away that free. But hey, if Dixon, Gray, Boak and Wingard hadn't messed up 14 shots at goal between them, Polec never would've been in a position to cost us the game with a poor tackle in the first place.



No you didn't. The Witherden pick was always Brisbane's. The Cedric Cox pick was involved in the trade but it came from Gold Coast, not us.

The overall deal (combined with a follow-up deal we did with Sydney) from Port's perspective was basically 2016 pick 11 and 2017 pick 12 for Sam Powell-Pepper, Todd Marshall, Joe Atley and Willem Drew. SPP for pick 11 you'd do again every day of the week, Marshall has shown enough that I'm sure we'd be happy enough to keep him over 2017 pick 12 in a weaker draft, which means anything we get out of Atley and Drew in future years is a bonus. So I'd say Port came out alright. Pearce Hanley for pick 12 means a club in Brisbane's position probably came out alright too.

THis is not expressly correct, you didn't turn say 2 picks into 4 players, but don't have the energy to argue that going into detail on points

You should be happy enough though, made some risky moves which could have gone horribly but turned out quite well, but cant paint it as though a 2 for 4 deal

 

[SizeMatters]

Port done well with the trade all things considered and actually probably had one of the best trade periods for a while along with the Saints. We ill se hoe well we done this time next year with who ever we take with pick 12.

 

[Dlions]

Port done well with the trade all things considered and actually probably had one of the best trade periods for a while along with the Saints. We ill se hoe well we done this time next year with who ever we take with pick 12.

I think we have done ok to get pick 12 for Hanley. But yes, we will see how things work out in the trade period. And if a bid comes for Ballendon before that pick. It will only be in our favour if we dont have to match a bid.

 

[Kevvo]

I think we have done ok to get pick 12 for Hanley. But yes, we will see how things work out in the trade period. And if a bid comes for Ballendon before that pick. It will only be in our favour if we dont have to match a bid.

I'm not sure that's right.

For all we know (which for my part is a resounding nothing) we could rate Ballenden in the top 10. If so, getting him for the price of a diminishing Hanley would still be reasonable value.

What counts is that we have the option value of pick 12. We can choose whether to match or to take another kid. For my money, with the year Hanley has had, I'd bite your hand off if that was put to me in a trade now.

 

[Schulzenfest]

THis is not expressly correct, you didn't turn say 2 picks into 4 players, but don't have the energy to argue that going into detail on points

You should be happy enough though, made some risky moves which could have gone horribly but turned out quite well, but cant paint it as though a 2 for 4 deal

Well, we also gave up picks 49 and 67, although we didn't have the list space to use them anyway. I guess you could say it was 2016 11 + 49 + 67 and 2017 12 for SPP, Marshall, Atley and Drew. But I've talked about Port on the Brisbane board more than enough so after this post I'll leave you to it.

 

[Leuy LongerCombo]

Similar trades values last year were, Tom Mitchell for Pick 14, Deledio for Pick 14+ And Hanley for pick 12. That stacks up pretty good in my eyes.

Port done well with the trade all things considered and actually probably had one of the best trade periods for a while along with the Saints. We ill se hoe well we done this time next year with who ever we take with pick 12.

Port had a good off season last year, but its mortgaged against this year. They done well to identify what looks like a very even 2016 draft, then generated a couple of extra picks.

 

[xplo]

It's an interesting one. Port were only involved in our trade on a picks-for-picks basis. Basically, in the Hanley trade, GC offered multiple lower picks (effectively 22 & 30), Port turned them into one higher pick for us.

On points, we lost on the trade - if we'd just accepted GC's draft picks, we'd have had more draft points on the AFL system (we needed Port to finish 9th to come out ahead on that basis).

As there are limited coaching staff, development resources and even opportunity within any club, having too many high picks in the same year isn't necessarily as advantageous as spreading the load.

First year players require special attention. Keeping the pick would have turned Corey Lyons into a higher pick. We debuted 6 players in 2017 and had 4 playing at once on occasion. That's already a lot.

Realistically, another pick in the teens last draft either doesn't play, or takes games off Allison and Cox.

 

[spotthedog1]

As there are limited coaching staff, development resources and even opportunity within any club, having too many high picks in the same year isn't necessarily as advantageous as spreading the load.

First year players require special attention. Keeping the pick would have turned Corey Lyons into a higher pick. We debuted 6 players in 2017 and had 4 playing at once on occasion. That's already a lot.

Realistically, another pick in the teens last draft either doesn't play, or takes games off Allison and Cox.

Agreed, but I'd rather have a SPP or similar compared to a Lyons. I'd also rather give games to an SPP compared to Allison.

But contrarily, I think what we're missing is top 10 draft talent. Too many 20s and 30s picks on our list to be competitive. Don't blame the club at all for taking a shot, and pick 12 should be a good player.

 

[briztoon]

Agreed, but I'd rather have a SPP or similar compared to a Lyons. I'd also rather give games to an SPP compared to Allison.

But contrarily, I think what we're missing is top 10 draft talent. Too many 20s and 30s picks on our list to be competitive. Don't blame the club at all for taking a shot, and pick 12 should be a good player.

SPP was not picked with our priority pick that was sent to Port.

Best I can work out the long trade is this.

Brisbane trade Pearce Hanley and pick 19 for Pick 22 (from Gold Coast) and Port Adelaide's 2017 first round pick.

Gold Coast Receive Hanley and Pick 67 from Port Adelaide.

Port Adelaide receive Pick 19 (from Brisbane) and Pick 30 (from Gold Coast).


Port Adelaide then sent Picks 9, 19 & 49 to Sydney for Picks 14, 17 and 31.


So basically Brisbane traded Pearce Hanley and Will Hayward (the player picked with our original pick 19) for Cedric Cox and an as yet unknown player.

 

[spotthedog1]

SPP was not picked with our priority pick that was sent to Port.

Best I can work out the long trade is this.

Brisbane trade Pearce Hanley and pick 19 for Pick 22 (from Gold Coast) and Port Adelaide's 2017 first round pick.

Gold Coast Receive Hanley and Pick 67 from Port Adelaide.

Port Adelaide receive Pick 19 (from Brisbane) and Pick 30 (from Gold Coast).


Port Adelaide then sent Picks 9, 19 & 49 to Sydney for Picks 14, 17 and 31.


So basically Brisbane traded Pearce Hanley and Will Hayward (the player picked with our original pick 19) for Cedric Cox and an as yet unknown player.

I know. My discussion was more around list management. Talking about types of players. Sorry if it wasnt clear.

 

[Jonts]

THis is not expressly correct, you didn't turn say 2 picks into 4 players, but don't have the energy to argue that going into detail on points

You should be happy enough though, made some risky moves which could have gone horribly but turned out quite well, but cant paint it as though a 2 for 4 deal

You're correct

Atley is essentially our pick 49 and drew our original 68 (?)

Still a win for both clubs imo

 

[RWFFFPT]

What will it take to have this thread to be a certified legendary?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dlanod]

What will it take to have this thread to be a certified legendary?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pick 2.

 

[irel]

What will it take to have this thread to be a certified legendary?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For the mods to get of their arssess and earn their keep and transfer all the death riding posts from all the other pseudo death riding threads.

 

[lionshine]

What happens if we offer Rockliff a squillion dollars in free agency and you get Band 1 compensation? It wouldn't be quite in the way you envisioned when this thread began but you'd still get your top 2 pick thanks to Port.

Well, we also gave up picks 49 and 67, although we didn't have the list space to use them anyway. I guess you could say it was 2016 11 + 49 + 67 and 2017 12 for SPP, Marshall, Atley and Drew. But I've talked about Port on the Brisbane board more than enough so after this post I'll leave you to it.

You just can't quite help yourself can you

 

[Ironmonger]

What happens if we offer Rockliff a squillion dollars in free agency and you get Band 1 compensation? It wouldn't be quite in the way you envisioned when this thread began but you'd still get your top 2 pick thanks to Port.

You become our bestest friends.

Schulz, can you explain Port's interest in Rockliff to me? I'd have thought you're pretty well covered for that sort of player. I see Rockliff as pretty similar to Boak in some ways, but there doesn't seem to be a spot for him in your midfield.

 

[Schulzenfest]

You become our bestest friends.

Schulz, can you explain Port's interest in Rockliff to me? I'd have thought you're pretty well covered for that sort of player. I see Rockliff as pretty similar to Boak in some ways, but there doesn't seem to be a spot for him in the midfield.

I wasn't too keen either until I watched Shuey, Priddis, Mitchell, Redden and Sheed collectively buttfu** us on the inside last Saturday night.

Outside of Wines and the still very raw SPP, most of our mids are better on the outside. And we don't really have a midfielder who just consistently racks up stats and tackles week in week out the way Rocky does. I can see where the interest comes from.

I think there's a good chance it'll happen, but probably not for a contract big enough to get your mob a top 2 compo pick (which according to an article I read the other day would require an offer of over 800k). More likely to be an end of first round compo pick.

 

[dlanod]

What happens if we offer Rockliff a squillion dollars in free agency and you get Band 1 compensation? It wouldn't be quite in the way you envisioned when this thread began but you'd still get your top 2 pick thanks to Port.

That outcome is not really compatible with the idea of "death riding" though, is it?

 

[Ironmonger]

I wasn't too keen either until I watched Shuey, Priddis, Mitchell and Sheed collectively butt**** us on the inside last Saturday night.

Outside of Wines and the still very raw SPP, most of our mids are better on the outside. And we don't really have a midfielder who just consistently racks up stats and tackles week in week out the way Rocky does. I can see where the interest comes from.

That's an interesting point. Port's midfield seems to stack up okay against most teams in the league, but I guess it's true that it looks significantly weaker against most of the other finallists, particularly inside.

It might also help explain why their record against top eight teams is so ordinary.

 

[pauldrc]

Rocky's start to the year before injury was amazing -go check his stats!

Plus he can be damaging forward, he really could be an inspired pick up for the right team, but ONLY if we get a PP - pick 2.

 

[LongLion]

I wasn't too keen either until I watched Shuey, Priddis, Mitchell, Redden and Sheed collectively butt**** us on the inside last Saturday night.

Outside of Wines and the still very raw SPP, most of our mids are better on the outside. And we don't really have a midfielder who just consistently racks up stats and tackles week in week out the way Rocky does. I can see where the interest comes from.

I think there's a good chance it'll happen, but probably not for a contract big enough to get your mob a top 2 compo pick (which according to an article I read the other day would require an offer of over 800k). More likely to be an end of first round compo pick.

Any chance you can develop Polec as an inside mid........ sorry the opportunity was sitting there too good not to act on

 

[Panthera]

It's an interesting one. Port were only involved in our trade on a picks-for-picks basis. Basically, in the Hanley trade, GC offered multiple lower picks (effectively 22 & 30), Port turned them into one higher pick for us.

On points, we lost on the trade - if we'd just accepted GC's draft picks, we'd have had more draft points on the AFL system (we needed Port to finish 9th to come out ahead on that basis). That said, I think most would agree that we don't need more second rounders, and we have a relative lack of top level draft picks on our list. Turning that into pick 12 this year, I don't think that's a horrible trade. I think pick 10-12 would've been about right for Hanley's value at the time.

That said, looking at Hanley's year, and it's been heavily interrupted for a variety of reasons, so on that basis, we also came out ahead. Hanley's also getting on in years, so we probably traded him out at the last opportunity to maximise his value.

Then again, if he recaptures form and plays every game next year, GC would certainly feel pretty reasonable about the trade. At his best, he's definitely worth a top 10 pick. Just a matter of if he ever recaptures that form, or if injury cruels him.


At the end of the day though, I loved having skin in the game in an epic final, and really enjoyed that the Weagles got up for it. Cracker of a game.

30 next year - best is waaaaaaaay past him.

Massive win at the trade table moving him on, let alone culture wise (if floated rumours were true).

 

[winged1]

Any chance you can develop Polec as an inside mid........ sorry the opportunity was sitting there too good not to act on

Will need to work on his tackling

 

[Skoob]

Any chance you can develop Polec as an inside mid........ sorry the opportunity was sitting there too good not to act on

Better there than letting him defend in their back 50m.

 

[pulpdriver]

Better there than letting him defend in their back 50m.