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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Posts
73,577
Likes
94,322
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tottenham, Bushrangers
I know we arnt premiers screwed up prelim
Point is. What works for one club may not for others.
All clubs are different, with different strengths and different weaknesses.

Just because they won the flag with 1 ruck + Grigg doesn’t mean this is the fool proof blueprint we must follow.
you'll have to be happy with prelim failures before the inevitable long rebuild
‘Inevitable’.... possible yes, inevitable no.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Pack Specialist

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Posts
4,633
Likes
7,460
AFL Club
Geelong
Maybe, although as far as pure 'ruckman' go I rate Spencer higher.
I've watched Spencer play more than Clarke and I'd have either as depth.

I feel as if we trade Stanley and get Clarke for nothing, then we are winners.

Stanley is better than both these guys but is on something like 400k!

I'd rather Clarke on the minimum (over Stanley) to be honest (who wouldn't?)
 

CatsDoItBetter

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 9, 2015
Posts
3,542
Likes
5,200
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Melbourne Renegades
Would love to add a mature player to the rookie list. Spencer, Menzel, Schaude or someone else as cover. Harder to convince to go on a rookie list but if it’s their last chance they will. We should have at least one spot on the rookie list with Parsons being upgraded. Spencer is a good player he’d be good backup to Smith. He’s a better ruckman than Stanley and has kicked goals for the demons. If there’s a way of trading Stanley and adding Spencer to the main list that would work.
But I’m not sure anyone would take Stanley, he’d be a good fit at the Suns. But perhaps he or they don’t want that as you’d expect he’s name would’ve been raised.
 

BigCat1

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Posts
2,771
Likes
2,756
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
The Mighty Cats
They're locked in on Naish so probably!

I'm just not sure that any team will help them out?

They've burnt a lot of bridges over the years!
??? It actually helps them with Naish potentially big time. The only thing that hurts them is if a bid comes early which is extremely unlikely. It tactfully makes sense to get rid of it if they don't expect that bid to come early.

Esp if they reem Ess of 300 points and pick up an extra 2nd rd pick
 

Grimoz

Premiership Player
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Posts
4,630
Likes
7,241
Location
Shhh...its a secret!!!
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Manchester Utd, New York Rangers
I've watched Spencer play more than Clarke and I'd have either as depth.

I feel as if we trade Stanley and get Clarke for nothing, then we are winners.

Stanley is better than both these guys but is on something like 400k!

I'd rather Clarke on the minimum (over Stanley) to be honest (who wouldn't?)
Stanley is contracted so wont be going anywhere unless he agrees to a trade.
 

Pack Specialist

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Posts
4,633
Likes
7,460
AFL Club
Geelong
Why was Watts playing in VFL for a team that didn’t even play finals ?
...

Because he was dropped by the world's worst MC.

His coach doesn't rate him.

Could you name a dozen players who are better than Watts on our team?

I can think of 3-4 obvious names, a couple of arguables and the rest are lesser players than Jack Watts IMO
 

Pack Specialist

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Posts
4,633
Likes
7,460
AFL Club
Geelong
??? It actually helps them with Naish potentially big time. The only thing that hurts them is if a bid comes early which is extremely unlikely. It tactfully makes sense to get rid of it if they don't expect that bid to come early.

Esp if they reem Ess of 300 points and pick up an extra 2nd rd pick
We'll see I guess.

Essendon still have 2 major trades to work out.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Grimoz

Premiership Player
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Posts
4,630
Likes
7,241
Location
Shhh...its a secret!!!
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Manchester Utd, New York Rangers

Pure_Ownage

Premium Platinum
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Posts
33,654
Likes
30,890
Location
PODS fan club office
AFL Club
Geelong
I've watched Spencer play more than Clarke and I'd have either as depth.

I feel as if we trade Stanley and get Clarke for nothing, then we are winners.

Stanley is better than both these guys but is on something like 400k!

I'd rather Clarke on the minimum (over Stanley) to be honest (who wouldn't?)
The funny bit is Geelong were reportedly keen on Clarke in 2013 when Taylor looked like going to Freo. But it's 4 years on and his knees have been bad for a long time, i doubt we look at him now.
 

Jeff76

Club Legend
Joined
May 5, 2014
Posts
2,604
Likes
3,882
AFL Club
Geelong
...

Because he was dropped by the world's worst MC.

His coach doesn't rate him.

Could you name a dozen players who are better than Watts on our team?

I can think of 3-4 obvious names, a couple of arguables and the rest are lesser players than Jack Watts IMO
Hawk 2e Danger Selwoods Duncan Cocky Hendo Taylor Menegola Bews for starters I'd have way before Watts.
 

Turbocat

Premium Platinum
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Posts
35,947
Likes
31,515
Location
Newtown
AFL Club
Geelong
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.
Hell of a post.. dont agree but thats why Im here.. to read alt views and debate.

I disagree that we were all agreeing to the "all in" a while ago..there is no such animal on this board as universal harmony and agreement. I have been around here a long time and I cant remember anytime were all thought we should follow a certain path.

I have not changed my tune for the 2017 acquisition period... I quite happy going to the draft.I don't see how being all in works every year , just is not enough available talent , we have to balance the now with the future. One always has to trade within the restraints of the AFL system.. we don't have a NRL system and the draft has played a significant part in the last two flags.

All in? No. If GC don't like any of the deals we can live with then Im fine with Ablett staying there as well..

I think the club does not say they will only do it this way or that. Not these days , well certainly not constrained by only one path. Add matures to fill immediate needs and perhaps occasionally to add players of a better standard than who you have but we still have to add players thru draft... and occasionally we have to add some early picks to keep our list balanced and fresh enough to appeal to the mature players. All the while planning up to 2-3 years ahead and potentially losing FAs to other clubs.
 

Pure_Ownage

Premium Platinum
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Posts
33,654
Likes
30,890
Location
PODS fan club office
AFL Club
Geelong
??? It actually helps them with Naish potentially big time. The only thing that hurts them is if a bid comes early which is extremely unlikely. It tactfully makes sense to get rid of it if they don't expect that bid to come early.

Esp if they reem Ess of 300 points and pick up an extra 2nd rd pick
Agree if Richmond don't think naish will be bid on before pick 15 the pick swap is good for them.
 

Pack Specialist

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Posts
4,633
Likes
7,460
AFL Club
Geelong
Hawk 2e Danger Selwoods Duncan Cocky Hendo Taylor Menegola Bews for starters I'd have way before Watts.
Selwoods-yes
Duncan-yes
Dangerfield-yes
Hendo-maybe
Taylor-not at this point in time
Hawkins- yes

Cocky? No freaking way
Menegola? No freaking way
Bews? No freaking way

4 or 5 players better than Watts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom