Rumour GFC 2017 Player Trading, Drafting, FA, Rumours, and Wish lists - PT2

[Grimoz]

They dangled pick 11 to the Dogs and D'Orazio and then traded it for a much inferior player.

They're lessening their currency to land Saad and will offer the Dogs scraps.

We will get Stringer IMO.

Posters on this board have told me to shut up about him, but why stop talking about a player we are firmly in the race for?

They will just give next years 1st rounder to get him, it will happen.

 

[Turbocat]

I think ess will trade a 2018 rnd 2 for saad (gc want future picks) and they will offer bulldogs 24 and 29 for stringer and a later pick which i doubt the dogs will accept.

Of course they want futures... we should too. OK ..so then id trade to get one of those picks included in the Ablett deal.

Dogs have put a peg in the ground.... and Ess have whacked it in and stepped over it

 

[Grimoz]

Thurlow and pick 20 for stringer and a 2nd rounder?

 

[Sttew]

not permitted.
this shall be interesting.
AFL will probably come out and say it is permitted if you apply to them for permission.

There is probably a sub-rule in very fine print that says "If the club has received a priority draft pick in the past 5 years then the future draft trade rule shall not apply"

 

[THE CAT WRANGLER]

Motlop is killing us sign to a club

 

[Pack Specialist]

They will just give next years 1st rounder to get him, it will happen.

I'm not sure they will to be honest!

It would be more of a gamble for them than us IMO

 

[CatTricks]

Thurlow and pick 20 for stringer and a 2nd rounder?

nope.
20 alone or nothing.
Stringer can't go back to the WB, and Stringer needs us more than we need him IMO.

 

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

LUL Melbourne got bent over.

 

[fpm84]

Motlop to Gold Coast would be the best result for us outside of him staying.

They would pay enough for us to get a round one compensation pick and he wouldn't be strengthening a club we may be challenging for a top 4/6 berth next year.

 

[ShaunWDT]

Just looking thru some of the names that Knightmare has drifting out to 20..... not long ago these guys were a lot earlier. I do not mind the idea of going small... Spargo & Petruccelle for eg but its hard to judged when they will be called.

To me , as it seems to happen each year... These week drafts seem to have a few handy looking players in the 20 range... To me O'Brien look very good last year..looked DelSanto. Allen ..at 191 ..is this the new in vogue size for a forward. Taylor do not know enough about him

20. Lochie O'Brien (VIC)
Best position: Outside midfield
Height, weight: 184cm, 75kg
Recruited from: Bendigo Pioneers
Projected draft range: first round
Similar to: Jimmy Toumpas
July Ranking: 18
Rationale: Does damage on the outside by foot and with his run. Finds enough of the ball but would be higher if he won more contested ball.
Strengths:
Arguably the best kick in the draft with his precision, variety of kicks he can execute, hurt factor and dual sided kicking
Lowers eyes
Vision
Decision Making
Line breaker
Acceleration
Evasiveness
Agility
Overhead marking
Production
Versatility to play midfield or on flanks at either end
Weaknesses:
Stoppage work
Contested ball winning

20. Oscar Allen (WA)

Best position: Key forward/general forward
Height, weight: 191cm, 83kg
Recruited from: West Perth
Projected draft range: First to second round
Similar to: Jack Gunston
September Ranking: Not ranked
Rationale: Larke Medalist led the Under-18 Championships with 11 goals and was Team Enright's best in the Under-18 All Stars game. Has earned a top-20 position.
Strengths:
Football smarts
Reads play early
Reads ball in flight early
Leading patterns
Work rate
Forward pressure
Clean at ground level
Strong hands overhead
Weaknesses:
Below average height and reach by position

20. Sam Taylor (WA)

Best position: Key defender
Height, weight: 196cm, 85kg
Recruited from: Swan Districts
Projected draft range: second to third round
Similar to: Adam Tomlinson
August Ranking: Not ranked
Rationale: Playing WAFL League football and holding his own is a significant accomplishment for the Under-18 All-Australian. A recent 27-disposal, eight mark, best on ground performance in Round 23 sees Taylor break his way into the top 20.
Strengths:
Clean hands at ground level
Involved in general play
Intercept marking
Reading of the flight
Capable both as a rebounder and stopper
Has performances on the board against WAFL League competition
Weaknesses:
Inconsistent kick
Key defender only

20 is a bit early for Taylor for mine, bit of a shit truck user of the footy.

Allen and O'Brien would have to slide a bit to be there at 20 but both would be great fits for us.

 

[THE CAT WRANGLER]

LUL Melbourne got bent over.

Don’t laugh yet we will on Ablett

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Exactly my line of thought!

I'm not sure Richmond would do it tbh.

15/17 for 24 and 29 is about an extra 300 points re bidding though so i reckon richmond would do it.

 

[zb14]

Actually it does mean exactly that and it's not terrible. We want a pick in the early 20s to take to the draft. We value Watts at 20 but at this stage value a pick in the draft at that spot more. If we get a pick for Motlop we can give it away for Watts and still take our pick to the draft. That's why having an extra pick does indeed mean we value it differently.

But, you see, this is a confused list management approach. Reading this board, when everyone here thought we were getting Ablett, Stringer, Watts, Smith and more, we were "all in", "have to go hard whilst we have Selwood, Hawk etc next few seasons" etc. And I agree with that. Facts are we have gone down a certain path and it makes no sense to walk away now.

But, now that it looks like we're missing our targets, many of those same posters are now walking that back and saying they're happy to hit the draft. It makes absolutely no sense to hit the draft now for our list. None. Not unless you are going to start trading out valuable commodities who couldn't be involved in a flag in, say, 5 years. Clearly we aren't doing that.

Now, on Wells comments yesterday. He clearly said our valuation of Watts doesn't converge with Melbourne's. So a deal is unlikely at this stage. So if 20 is too much, then so is 19. That is a simple equation given Wells own comments. Further, many are floating this idea Wells has a specific kid in mind for 20. This raises a few issues of its own. Firstly, there are at least 19 clubs selecting ahead of us at this stage. If our "target" is in the first 20-25-odd ranked kids, there can be no guarantee we get him at our selection. Alternatively, if we really rate the first 20-25 kids in this draft generally, then surely its even more attractive to Wells to take TWO of those very good kids, rather than use 19 or 20 on Watts? And thirdly, if Wells is really confident that his selection will be available at 20, then we can likely presume he's reaching again, and that raises its own issues.

This is the inherent risk of going down the path we have the last few years. If you go all in, then you really need to see out the job fully. You need to embrace the risks associated with your chosen path. These risks include leaving yourself exposed only to the available elite talent in any given trade period. This year that is particularly relevant given all the available "big fish" have relevant baggage issues (Ablett, Rockliff, Stringer, Watts). You need to embrace the risk that effectively requires you to lure players to "nominate" your club. You need to embrace the risk that you might have to overpay for your targets at the trade table because other clubs are neither blind, nor generous, when it comes to the list management path you have chosen. And finally, if the "available" targets are not desirable, you need to have the boldness and balls to try and pull contracted players away. To go to the draft with picks inside 30 this year will be nothing but a FAIL, given the path we have chosen. Pure and simple. Anything else is spin.

I posted before the trade period started that we continue to fall short (not only this reason fwiw) because we haven't fully embraced a clear list management path. Thats why our list is shallow. We've had a bit each way and continue to do so. This isn't just about Caddy/Parfitt for instance, its about the path we clearly should've taken post 2013, when it was obvious a great core of players had given the dice one last roll. From then, we needed to decide draft or aggressive rebuild. Neither option is a guarantee, but whatever you choose, you need to do fully. Whatever the chosen path, it was then incumbent on us to move decisively on those who wouldn't realistically be a part of the next tilt, and extract best value for them. In our instance, we seemingly chose the aggressive rebuild path. Thats fine. In that instance, its reasonable to forecast a 5-odd year range. So, 2017-18 the targeted premiership years. We then needed to get ruthless, and trade out aggressively to generate currency. This is where we've failed, quite frankly. We held onto veterans for too long given our "plan", and have lost valuable role players like Varcoe, Caddy etc for less than market value, or a return that doesn't fit the "plan". Too scared to dangle those who have currency but have flaws (Blicavs, Guthrie). The time to hit the draft hard (if at all) was in '13, '14, so that your draftees could get about 2-3 seasons (50 odd games) before contention time in '17,'18.

Instead, what we have done is a disjointed list management path. Draft a little here, trade in there,, lose someone wanted that is contracted, trade out R1's for peanuts, pick up an FA, top up with an unwanted hack here (Black, Lloyd?), pick up the obligatory VFL Banker or three etc.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Motlop to Gold Coast would be the best result for us outside of him staying.

They would pay enough for us to get a round one compensation pick and he wouldn't be strengthening a club we may be challenging for a top 4/6 berth next year.

Motlop needs to decide soon for our sake.

 

[Pack Specialist]

Motlop to Gold Coast would be the best result for us outside of him staying.

They would pay enough for us to get a round one compensation pick and he wouldn't be strengthening a club we may be challenging for a top 4/6 berth next year.

Yep!

 

[Turbocat]

20 is a bit early for Taylor for mine, bit of a shit truck user of the footy.

Allen and O'Brien would have to slide a bit to be there at 20 but both would be great fits for us.

As I said have not seen him but Knightmare is usually not to far off..

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Don’t laugh yet we will on Ablett

No we won't.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

I can see us picking up Jake Spencer as a delisted FA.

Will already have a mate in Watts at the club.

 

[Pack Specialist]

But, you see, this is a confused list management approach. Reading this board, when everyone here thought we were getting Ablett, Stringer, Watts, Smith and more, we were "all in", "have to go hard whilst we have Selwood, Hawk etc next few seasons" etc. And I agree with that. Facts are we have gone down a certain path and it makes no sense to walk away now.

But, now that it looks like we're missing our targets, many of those same posters are now walking that back and saying they're happy to hit the draft. It makes absolutely no sense to hit the draft now for our list. None. Not unless you are going to start trading out valuable commodities who couldn't be involved in a flag in, say, 5 years. Clearly we aren't doing that.

Now, on Wells comments yesterday. He clearly said our valuation of Watts doesn't converge with Melbourne's. So a deal is unlikely at this stage. So if 20 is too much, then so is 19. That is a simple equation given Wells own comments. Further, many are floating this idea Wells has a specific kid in mind for 20. This raises a few issues of its own. Firstly, there are at least 19 clubs selecting ahead of us at this stage. If our "target" is in the first 20-25-odd ranked kids, there can be no guarantee we get him at our selection. Alternatively, if we really rate the first 20-25 kids in this draft generally, then surely its even more attractive to Wells to take TWO of those very good kids, rather than use 19 or 20 on Watts? And thirdly, if Wells is really confident that his selection will be available at 20, then we can likely presume he's reaching again, and that raises its own issues.

This is the inherent risk of going down the path we have the last few years. If you go all in, then you really need to see out the job fully. You need to embrace the risks associated with your chosen path. These risks include leaving yourself exposed only to the available elite talent in any given trade period. This year that is particularly relevant given all the available "big fish" have relevant baggage issues (Ablett, Rockliff, Stringer, Watts). You need to embrace the risk that effectively requires you to lure players to "nominate" your club. You need to embrace the risk that you might have to overpay for your targets at the trade table because other clubs are neither blind, nor generous, when it comes to the list management path you have chosen. And finally, if the "available" targets are not desirable, you need to have the boldness and balls to try and pull contracted players away. To go to the draft with picks inside 30 this year will be nothing but a FAIL, given the path we have chosen. Pure and simple. Anything else is spin.

I posted before the trade period started that we continue to fall short (not only this reason fwiw) because we haven't fully embraced a clear list management path. Thats why our list is shallow. We've had a bit each way and continue to do so. This isn't just about Caddy/Parfitt for instance, its about the path we clearly should've taken post 2013, when it was obvious a great core of players had given the dice one last roll. From then, we needed to decide draft or aggressive rebuild. Neither option is a guarantee, but whatever you choose, you need to do fully. Whatever the chosen path, it was then incumbent on us to move decisively on those who wouldn't realistically be a part of the next tilt, and extract best value for them. In our instance, we seemingly chose the aggressive rebuild path. Thats fine. In that instance, its reasonable to forecast a 5-odd year range. So, 2017-18 the targeted premiership years. We then needed to get ruthless, and trade out aggressively to generate currency. This is where we've failed, quite frankly. We held onto veterans for too long given our "plan", and have lost valuable role players like Varcoe, Caddy etc for less than market value, or a return that doesn't fit the "plan". Too scared to dangle those who have currency but have flaws (Blicavs, Guthrie). The time to hit the draft hard (if at all) was in '13, '14, so that your draftees could get about 2-3 seasons (50 odd games) before contention time in '17,'18.

Instead, what we have done is a disjointed list management path. Draft a little here, trade in there,, lose someone wanted that is contracted, trade out R1's for peanuts, pick up an FA, top up with an unwanted hack here (Black, Lloyd?), pick up the obligatory VFL Banker or three etc.

This post is why I read bigfooty.

Simply amazing and GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!!!!

 

[THE CAT WRANGLER]

I can see us picking up Jake Spencer as a delisted FA.

Will already have a mate in Watts at the club.

Please no !

 

[BigCat1]

Someone on foxsports trade blog just said this, interesting if true, bad for us i think if that happens

"Have heard from people at the Gold Coast footy club that Steven Motlop has already signed the dotted line at the Gold Coast, but the club are waiting to release to the press as they want to announce it with conjunction to Ablett to Geelong, which is set the be finalized next week"

They have until Sunday

 

[ChookNorris]

Not really. Has anyone considered it takes a while to make a decision after all teams sit down and work out what they have to offer on day 1. Players livelihoods are involved and they have to discuss moves with their families.

All clubs are speaking well outside of the allotted time. There is no point having that extra week of open trading period other than to force more attention to it.

 

[nananana catman]

Instead, what we have done is a disjointed list management path. Draft a little here, trade in there,, lose someone wanted that is contracted, trade out R1's for peanuts, pick up an FA, top up with an unwanted hack here (Black, Lloyd?), pick up the obligatory VFL Banker or three etc.

Every premiership team ever has been put together like this old mate.

 

[nananana catman]

They have until Sunday

How does the 3 days grace period for matching work?

 

[THE CAT WRANGLER]

They have until Sunday

Selfish Motlop do the right thing by us and sign so we can get something we have supported through all the years through his offield issues