Club Focus Gold Coast 2020 - Atkins, Markov, Hollands

[Lore]

Data from footywire. To check the draft order (updated weekly) see the thread here.

 

[Jeremias]

Let’s play the what if game.

What if Daniher didn’t request a trade.

Then what was the Blues offer for Papley?

It involved our first pick, and the Swans were happy enough to accept it given they offered it for Daniher.

 

[eastfreo75]

It involved our first pick, and the Swans were happy enough to accept it given they offered it for Daniher.

So they refused to trade with you guys?

Why would you get involved with Papley if you knew the stance the Swans would take and how Essendon are impossible to do a trade with?

 

[Jeremias]

So they refused to trade with you guys?

Why would you get involved with Papley if you knew the stance the Swans would take and how Essendon are impossible to do a trade with?

They didn’t refuse to trade with us, but they did refuse to deal Papley if Daniher didn’t go in the opposite direction.

How is this still unclear to people?

We got involved in Papley because he’s a jet, fills a need, and wanted to return to Victoria. Simple.

 

[briztoon]

Carlton didn't get Martin for nothing?
Martin isn't happy?
Gold Coast had to swallow their pride after all the initial chest-puffing?
They're not facts?

I don't know how Carlton come out looking bad for not trading out their first rounder for a player GC deemed to be reserves player at years end.
Quite frankly my dear.......I think you're mixed up.

It’s not what you paid for x or y player. It’s how your club was perceived to have behaved.

Carlton behaved poorly. Didn’t act in good faith.

Carlton offered a poor trade, and Gold Coast refused.

How does Gold Coast look bad, when you’re trying to pull their pants down?

When was the last time a club failed to trade for a player and walked him through the psd? How did that club look then?

I will admit we didn't come out looking good during and the trade and draft period, but this is all due to the fallout with SOS and his falling out with the Club/CEO Cain Liddle, and nothing with the failed trade for Martin and Papley.

Everyone knows the Papley deal depended on Essendon trading Daniher to the Swans, and you don't knock back getting a player of Martin's ability and potential for free in the PSD.

But I honestly cannot deny we haven't come out of period looking like clowns again, in another case of self-sabotage/internal political s**t fights within the club..

Hard to think that apart from Essendon, no club in the last 15 years or so has shot itself in the foot so many times than Carlton.. Most frustrating.

Everyone understood where the Papley trade stood in regards to Carlton, so that didn’t reflect poorly on Carlton.

I believe SOS has a better grasp of live trading than most list managers.

He is kind of lucky the Stoker trade worked out the way it did, as it was a risky move.

The draft day trade with Gold Coast certainly looked like a good trade. Not sure about drafting Philp though.

 

[eastfreo75]

They didn’t refuse to trade with us, but they did refuse to deal Papley if Daniher didn’t go in the opposite direction.

How is this still unclear to people?

We got involved in Papley because he’s a jet, fills a need, and wanted to return to Victoria. Simple.

The Swans refused to trade Papley to the Blues.

What you guys offer wasn’t enough.

 

[Jeremias]

Carlton offered a poor trade, and Gold Coast refused.

Carlton offered what they believed was a fair trade for someone who was out of contract and not returning to their original club.

What should we have done; offered more than what we wanted, because the GC wanted more?

Wasn't it reported that a number of clubs had become frustrated with the Suns over the Martin failed trade?

Of course it's not what we wanted and of course it could have been handled better, but I don't think Carlton came out of it looking anywhere nearly as bad as you are suggesting.

He is kind of lucky the Stoker trade worked out the way it did, as it was a risky move.

So when it doesn't work out it was a poor decision, but when it does work out, we got lucky?

That sounds fair.

 

[Jeremias]

The Swans refused to trade Papley to the Blues.

What you guys offer wasn’t enough.

This is just incorrect. A fallacy. Complete garbage.

The Swans made it clear to all that Papley won't be dealt unless Essendon released Daniher.

The fact that the Swans offered Carlton's pick to the Bombers indicates they were comfortable with the offer we put forward for Papley. It's just absurd to think otherwise.

 

[eastfreo75]

This is just incorrect. A fallacy. Complete garbage.

The Swans made it clear to all that Papley won't be dealt unless Essendon released Daniher.

The fact that the Swans offered Carlton's pick to the Bombers indicates they were comfortable with the offer we put forward for Papley. It's just absurd to think otherwise.

Lol

You are refusing see the point.

When you trade you must give something useful for the other team.

SOS rightly sacked didn’t offer something useful to either the Swans or Suns.

Hawthorn won’t get into this situation and learnt many years with ROK.

Papleys management made the wrong decision in selecting the BlueS.

It’s the role of a manager to know if a trade can get done, assets of the team and what the other team would want.

Essendon were never going to trade Daniher.

Sydney were never going to trade Papley unless they got Daniher.

To get into this mess was a mistake.

 

[Jeremias]

Lol

You are refusing see the point.

No, I got the point you're trying to make. The point is trash though, and you've followed it up with another by suggesting Silvagni got the sack because he got Martin for free and Sydney held Papley to his contract.

 

[eastfreo75]

No, I got the point you're trying to make. The point is trash though, and you've followed it up with another by suggesting Silvagni got the sack because he got Martin for free and Sydney held Papley to his contract.

SOS was very lucky with Martin.

 

[Jeremias]

SOS was very lucky with Martin.

Which isn't at all the discussion being had. You're fishing now.

It didn't happen the way we may have wanted it to, but SOS called the Suns' bluff and ultimately got his man for nothing.

 

[TheBoss]

Yes, you're full of s**t as usual.

Why do you always attack other users??

 

[TheBoss]

There was no hoping. GC were never going to re draft Martin. Not in any circumstance. Only a fool (Cochrane and fans) would think so.

MFC pulled out of the race because their cap is bursting. Funny how during the saga Dees fans were claiming Melbourne would happily pick him and him and May were best of friends, now we see this alternate spin.

Carlton get a talented player for a list spot instead of coughing up a top 10 pick = bad.
Bigfooty logic.

Freo will use the PSD to recruit Cripps

What goes around, comes around

 

[Dez!]

Why do you always attack other users??

Pointing out you're talking s**t isn't attacking you, you're accusing clubs of gross negligence by engaging in illegal "wink-wink" deals.

You really think Gold Coast who just got an incredible handout from the AFL would really engage in that sort of thing after the AFL did them a massive favour? Not to mention if one of the other clubs got wind of that sort of thing that they wouldn't go straight to the AFL?

Seriously think for a change.

 

[TheBoss]

Carlton offered what they believed was a fair trade for someone who was out of contract and not returning to their original club.

What should we have done; offered more than what we wanted, because the GC wanted more?

Wasn't it reported that a number of clubs had become frustrated with the Suns over the Martin failed trade?

Of course it's not what we wanted and of course it could have been handled better, but I don't think Carlton came out of it looking anywhere nearly as bad as you are suggesting.



So when it doesn't work out it was a poor decision, but when it does work out, we got lucky?

That sounds fair.

Clubs were frustrated with Martins demands, rather than dealing with GCS.

Martin nominated Carlton because they were willing to give him a 5 year deal on more coin than he reasonably deserves; he is now among the 10% highest paid players in the competiton.

Martin is supremely talented, but he is a lazy pea-heart. Also Carlton not in premiership contention so the thought of making a recruit one of your clubs highest paid players (despite never being a proven, consistent match winner) is bizarre.

It will be an albatross of a contract.

 

[Jeremias]

Clubs were frustrated with Martins demands, rather than dealing with GCS.

Clubs that had nothing to do with the negotiations were frustrated by Martin's demands to leave the Suns? That sounds likely.......or not.

Got any proof of that, or are you just talking rubbish again?

 

[TheBoss]

Pointing out you're talking s**t isn't attacking you, you're accusing clubs of gross negligence by engaging in illegal "wink-wink" deals.

You really think Gold Coast who just got an incredible handout from the AFL would really engage in that sort of thing after the AFL did them a massive favour? Not to mention if one of the other clubs got wind of that sort of thing that they wouldn't go straight to the AFL?

Seriously think for a change.

You are naieve. Wake up and smell the coffee!

 

[Dez!]

You are naieve. Wake up and smell the coffee!

I'm not being naive at all, you're just being stupid.

 

[briztoon]

Carlton offered what they believed was a fair trade for someone who was out of contract and not returning to their original club.

What should we have done; offered more than what we wanted, because the GC wanted more?

Wasn't it reported that a number of clubs had become frustrated with the Suns over the Martin failed trade?

Of course it's not what we wanted and of course it could have been handled better, but I don't think Carlton came out of it looking anywhere nearly as bad as you are suggesting.



So when it doesn't work out it was a poor decision, but when it does work out, we got lucky?

That sounds fair.

It was a risky trade, that Carlton managed to de-risk thanks to Adelaide imploding, and an unfortunate acl injury to Brodie Kemp.

So yes, SOS was lucky Adelaide imploded and that Brodie Kemp slid.

Nowhere have I said it was a poor decision.

If you want some good summer listening, try the Lystics AFL podcast.

They have a lot of good discussions and perspectives on trades, trade values etc. They talk about a lot concepts that have not yet been discussed in the wider AFL community, but have been around for years in the American sports trade discussions.

 

[briztoon]

Carlton offered what they believed was a fair trade for someone who was out of contract and not returning to their original club.

What should we have done; offered more than what we wanted, because the GC wanted more?

Wasn't it reported that a number of clubs had become frustrated with the Suns over the Martin failed trade?

Of course it's not what we wanted and of course it could have been handled better, but I don't think Carlton came out of it looking anywhere nearly as bad as you are suggesting.

Why were other clubs becoming frustrated with Gold Coast in regards to the Martin trade?

It’s not like there were any other trades with other clubs that were contingent on Gold Coast trading Martin to Carlton.

 

[Jeremias]

It was a risky trade, that Carlton managed to de-risk thanks to Adelaide imploding, and an unfortunate acl injury to Brodie Kemp.

So yes, SOS was lucky Adelaide imploded and that Brodie Kemp slid.

Nowhere have I said it was a poor decision.

If you want some good summer listening, try the Lystics AFL podcast.

They have a lot of good discussions and perspectives on trades, trade values etc. They talk about a lot concepts that have not yet been discussed in the wider AFL community, but have been around for years in the American sports trade discussions.

Every trade has an element of risk associated to it.

The trade was a good one for both sides, and I think you attribute too much of that to luck. Most of these guys are very good at what they do and there is often more to it than just luck.

Re: Lystics. Don't mind their stuff but was put off by their "analysis" of the Stocker trade, which I thought was pathetic. Not that I can't handle people querying it, but their thoughts on it were shallow....to be very kind.

Why were other clubs becoming frustrated with Gold Coast in regards to the Martin trade?

It’s not like there were any other trades with other clubs that were contingent on Gold Coast trading Martin to Carlton.

Going by this article, which I acknowledge could be mostly garbage given it seems to have been written by Tom Browne:

https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/frus...onal-gold-coast-move-with-afl-bosses-c-510147

It's not unreasonable to suggest clubs could get frustrated by another's stance on a trade, even if they are not directly involved. Lots of discussions that take place don't get leaked to the general public so there's every chance there were other trades in the pipeline that may have gone through, or gone through differently, had the Martin trade taken place.

 

[briztoon]

Every trade has an element of risk associated to it.

The trade was a good one for both sides, and I think you attribute too much of that to luck. Most of these guys are very good at what they do and there is often more to it than just luck.

Re: Lystics. Don't mind their stuff but was put off by their "analysis" of the Stocker trade, which I thought was pathetic. Not that I can't handle people querying it, but their thoughts on it were shallow....to be very kind.



Going by this article, which I acknowledge could be mostly garbage given it seems to have been written by Tom Browne:

https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/frus...onal-gold-coast-move-with-afl-bosses-c-510147

It's not unreasonable to suggest clubs could get frustrated by another's stance on a trade, even if they are not directly involved. Lots of discussions that take place don't get leaked to the general public so there's every chance there were other trades in the pipeline that may have gone through, or gone through differently, had the Martin trade taken place.

Edit. Sorry for such a long post.

From reading that article, Browne was saying clubs were upset at GC for not doing a deal because of the position Gold Coast was in due to the handout from the AFL.

Nothing to do with other clubs potential trades.

My guess is clubs might be upset this sets a precedent for future trades, and more clubs might offer unders in future trades, using the threat of walking a player through the psd.

In future, other clubs won’t have the pick assets Gold Coast had, to take such a stance on a trade, and have to accept the trade offered.

Using your own line as a counter point; “It’s not unreasonable to suggest clubs could get frustrated by another’s stance on a trade...”

Gold Coast clearly said they were frustrated with other (read Vic) clubs continually raiding them for players, continually offering unders in trade, and having to accept such trades, or lose a player for nothing.

This time, largely due to the assistance package from the AFL, Gold Coast said they were willing to draw a line in the sand.

Being a fan of a fellow Northern club, I fully appreciate Gold Coasts stance, even if I philosophically disagree with losing a player for nothing.

I can tell you there are still a lot of Brisbane fans who haven’t forgotten the go home 5 and the 2013 trade period.


As for the “risk” associated with the Stocker trade.

I’m just an amateur fan who likes the list management side of the game as much as the game itself, and I fully understand professionals within clubs have a far greater grasp (or at least we hope so) of opposition lists and dynamics, and the possible variances in outcomes of particular trades.

At the time of the Stocker trade I viewed it as Carlton trading a probable bottom 3 pick for pick 19 and a probable pick in the 11 to 14 range.

Which, at the time, I dare say was a pretty common view of the trade.

I’ll readily admit I haven’t spent any time reading or discussing the Stocker trade at all, because it had no bearing on my club.

I don’t know where the commentary that Carlton rated Stocker as the 6th best player in last years draft came from.

If it’s true that Carlton’s recruiters rated Stocker as the 6th best kid in the 2018 draft, then I genuinely question their ability to evaluate talent.

I have a much easier time believing that Carlton rated Stocker as the 6th best inside mid in last years draft, and on a list needs basis, he might have been 6th on Carlton’s board.

In which case I then question the decision makers in the list management team, and their ability to properly evaluate the worth or opportunity cost of such a trade.

Especially when they are trading future first round picks (even if it involves a pick swap), to fill a need rather considering best available talent, and factoring in there is an element of the unknown in the value of the first round pick.

It’s much easier to have such a discussion in hindsight, I’ll readily admit that.

When I first heard Carlton rated Stocker as the 6th best talent, I thought that was bulldust.

My initial thought was there were at least 12 players I rated easily ahead of Stocker in terms of current talent with the scope of having a better future career.

And once Xavier Duursma was off the board, there were no players worth paying significant current or future draft assets for in trade.

This where a recruiting teams assessment of the future draft crop comes to the fore, and managing the risk of the unknown.

Does Stocker plus a future pick in the probable 11 to 14 range have a greater chance at helping Carlton win a flag in 5 years time than a future pick in the 1 to 3 range. (I’ll readily admit I had Gold Coast finishing last, so it’s the 2 to 3 range in reality).

Then you widen the question to add in potential variance on both sides of the equation, and include potential trade partners potential finishing positions, and Carlton’s finishing position.

Does Stocker and a pick in the 7 to 10 range =/= a Carlton pick in 4 to 6 range / a Carlton pick in the 1 to 3 range, etc.

This where your analytics guy and recruiting team come in with a qualitative assessment, modelling potential outcomes with their assessment of the future draft pool a year out.

For me, a recruiting team would have to be going to a draft with a frame work of such trade models in place.

When one team is potentially trading a high future draft pick, the recruiting team should have a good insight in to the top end kids a year out.


For me, Stocker was a good inside mid, but certainly not in that upper echelon of inside mids. He’s the type you can find in the back half of the first round in most standard drafts.

This where the opportunity cost of such a trade comes in to play.

What potential future player are you giving up?

I know from last year draft watchers had Rowell, Anderson, Young and Kemp in their top ~6 players on their first power rankings boards.

What potential alternative future trades will be lost by making such a trade now?

A top 3 pick should be easy to trade for multiple picks in the first round.

Can you potentially trade such a pick for a top 6 pick and another current or future first round pick.

This where hindsight comes in, but Carlton could have had the chance to draft Hayden Young and Deven Robertson instead of Stocker, Philp and Kemp. Or Hayden Young and Kemp.

I know I would take Hayden Young by himself over Stocker and Philp together.

There’s much more potential discussion about the Stocker trade, and trading of future picks in general, but I’ve probably gone on enough already.

 

[Peel67skin]

Gold Coast 2019 - Rowell, Anderson, Flanders, Sharp, Farrar in the National Draft.

Carlton offer future pick which is 2020, get Martin through Rookie Draft not ND draft. Liam Stocker? Got nothing to do with GCS at all.
Carlton fans can talk about jack Martin in Martin Thread.

 

[Robertio]

Gold Coast 2019 - Rowell, Anderson, Flanders, Sharp, Farrar in the National Draft.

Carlton offer future pick which is 2020, get Martin through Rookie Draft not ND draft. Liam Stocker? Got nothing to do with GCS at all.
Carlton fans can talk about jack Martin in Martin Thread.

Just Carlton fans?

 

[Gold Rocks]

Gold Coast 2019 - Rowell, Anderson, Flanders, Sharp, Farrar in the National Draft.

Carlton offer future pick which is 2020, get Martin through Rookie Draft not ND draft. Liam Stocker? Got nothing to do with GCS at all.
Carlton fans can talk about jack Martin in Martin Thread.

If i was a suns fan i would be stoked with this draft haul. They all look like exciting kids.