Strategy Lukosius All In POLL

[mistylake]

I doubt that the team with no.1 would trade for 3 late firsts

If you believe that player is Hodge or Riewoldt, a generational player, they’re worth a lot more than 3 speculative picks

Really, how many players at no 1 have been generational best players.

 

[conVINCEd]

I doubt we’ll be making any crazy offers for Rory. His value has plummeted in the last 18 months

I’m sure we’d prefer he stayed but I can’t see anything silly being offered to him.

True that.

What is he worth then? I reckon $800K over four; generous on the years given he turns 29 next year but about right overall.

$1m is too much; Saints and Kangaroos are the only clubs I could see stumping that up for him - Saints because they desperately need the leadership and midfield boost, Roos more because they have the salary cap space and desperately want to actually win the race for someone. They might keep their powder try for Josh Kelly though.

 

[Sanders]

Was Riewoldt’s year of 2000 considered a superdraft though?...

No it wasn’t. But he was THE super prospect

2001 was THE super draft
13,14,20 got

Nick Dal Santo
Ashley Watson
Daniel Elstone

2006
Jack Riewoldt
James Sellar
Tom Hislop

This is why no one is giving up pick 1

 

[Sanders]

Really, how many players at no 1 have been generational best players.

A lot of them have been thought to be and valued as such

No one gets a crystal ball

 

[Shaz2012]

No it wasn’t. But he was THE super prospect

2001 was THE super draft
13,14,20 got

Nick Dal Santo
Ashley Watson
Daniel Elstone

2006
Jack Riewoldt
James Sellar
Tom Hislop

This is why no one is giving up pick 1

So what your saying is that if Carlton is willing then we should do it. You put one vote in the yes column. Hence the poll.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Some players seem to carry the weight of an early pick number around with them. Crushed under the heft of supporter (and club?) expectations.

Would Tambling, Watts, Boyd, McCartin... have been better players if they'd been pick 50 something?

*If* we give up a truckload for Lukosius will that double down the pressure on him?

Or is that pressure the very thing that might encourage a lowly club to give it up? Lot of pressure on the club and recruiters to deliver too. A botched early pick can set a club back years. As well as the possibly stifling pressure on the player joining what is usually a club at a low ebb with minimal talent.

 

[Sanders]

So what your saying is that if Carlton is willing then we should do it. You put one vote in the yes column. Hence the poll.

Thought I’d already said yes?

 

[Malifice]

If one of the “late first round picks” is actually Carlton’s second rounder, then I’m actually all for this PlayStation fantasy trade that will never eventuate.

Let’s say at the end of Finals, we finish 4th, Melbourne finish 6th, and Carlton finish 18th.

That gives us picks 13, 15, 19.

Then Sloane leaves. We don’t match the offer, because that’s not actually a thing that happens. We then have picks 13, 14, 16 and 20 (the latter two are bumped back one spot by the insertion of our FA compo).

The wildcard is Lynch. A) we have no idea if he’s staying or not, and B) we don’t really know what to expect for him in a trade if he does leave, as it all comes down to which club he nominates and what assets they’re willing to part with. For argument’s sake, let’s say that he either stays, or we get a 2019 first rounder for him (ie the Lynch situation doesn’t impact our standing in this year’s draft).

So, in this scenario, we are taking picks 13, 14, 16 and 20 to trade week.

I’ll tell you right now, there is pretty close to a zero percent chance we’ll be reading out 4 names in the top 20 on draft night.

Would we consider packaging up, say, 13, 14 and 20 for Pick 1? Considering the fact that Lukosius is from SA and literally touted as the best key forward prospect since N Riewoldt by everyone in the know, yes, I believe we would consider it.

We would also still be retaining pick 16, which could net us a C Rozee or J Hately type if we’re super lucky (Hately looks set to go top 10 but maybe things change). Regardless of whether one of those two is available here, we’d be getting someone who has a good chance to become a quality player. Not a once in a generation talent like Jack Lukosius, but a quality player.

Chances are Carlton / Brisbane will not be actively seeking out such a trade anyway, but on the off chance they were, i’m definitely entertaining the possibility of pulling the trigger.

Problem is you have at least 2 academy selections before pick 13 and if Lynch leaves the Suns, a PP to the suns to slot in as well effectively turning those picks into 16, 17 and 23.

If we were going to trade pick 1 we would want a better return than that. We really want to stick in the top 5 if we trade down.

Well likely be getting a PP this year at the end of the 1st round unless we have a spectacular turn around after the bye. Likely to finish with 2 or 3 wins this year with a percentage of around 60 percent.

Personally I reckon if we trade 1 to anyone it'll be to the Suns along with an early 2nd or the PP for (5 and 6 [Lymch compo]). If Lynch leaves they'll be pretty keen to snare a gun forward.

We should be able to work out a trade our remaining 2 second rounders to either North or the Swams for their first rounder (both clubs have gun academy blokes tipped to go top 10 and could use the extra points).

That could leave us with 2 top ten picks plus a pick in the early teens.

Live pick trading makes things even more interesting this year.

 

[Sanders]

Some players seem to carry the weight of an early pick number around with them. Crushed under the heft of supporter (and club?) expectations.

Would Tambling, Watts, Boyd, McCartin... have been better players if they'd been pick 50 something?

*If* we give up a truckload for Lukosius will that double down the pressure on him?

Or is that pressure the very thing that might encourage a lowly club to give it up? Lot of pressure on the club and recruiters to deliver too. A botched early pick can set a club back years. As well as the possibly stifling pressure on the player joining what is usually a club at a low ebb with minimal talent.

In this scenario we’d no doubt try to sell to Carlton the idea that their rebuild needs multiple pieces not one saviour

 

[Bicks]

Problem is you have at least 2 academy selections before pick 13 and if Lynch leaves the Suns, a PP to the suns to slot in as well effectively turning those picks into 16, 17 and 23.

If we were going to trade pick 1 we would want a better return than that. We really want to stick in the top 5 if we trade down.

Well likely be getting a PP this year at the end of the 1st round unless we have a spectacular turn around after the bye. Likely to finish with 2 or 3 wins this year with a percentage of around 60 percent.

Personally I reckon if we trade 1 to anyone it'll be to the Suns along with an early 2nd or the PP for (5 and 6 [Lymch compo]). If Lynch leaves they'll be pretty keen to snare a gun forward.

We should be able to work out a trade our remaining 2 second rounders to either North or the Swams for their first rounder (both clubs have gun academy blokes tipped to go top 10 and could use the extra points).

That could leave us with 2 top ten picks plus a pick in the early teens.

Live pick trading makes things even more interesting this year.

Where's this Priority pick coming from??

 

[Malifice]

Where's this Priority pick coming from??

Presuming we win 2 or 3 games this season we'll be asking for one, and we have at bare minimum an arguable case.

We would have finished with an average of less than 4 wins over 2 years, with 27 wins over 110 games over 5 years and an average percentage of 70 percent over those 5 years, and 2 spoons in that time (finishes of 18th, 14th, 13th, 15th, 18th).

We haven't scored 100 or more points in a match since early 2016. More than 2 years.

That's worse than Brishane when they got one at the end of 16.

 

[Malifice]

Criterion for being awarded a PP are:

• premiership points that a club has received over a period of years (with greater weight to recent seasons), (27 wins in 110 matches over 5 years, 8 wins over the most recent 2 years, 2 or 3 wins this year)
• a club's percentage (points for/points against x 100) over a period of years (another indication of on-field competitiveness, with greater weight to recent seasons), (70 percent average over 5 years, 60 percent this year, have not scored 100+ in a game for 3 years)
• any finals appearances that a club has made in recent seasons (2013 when we got bumped up from 9th due to Essendon being booted out for *)
• any premierships that a club has won in recent seasons, (last flag 1995) and
• a club's injury rates in each relevant season. (Unsure how this is weighted?)

We have at least an arguable case for a PP. If you're being objective, we clearly nail all those criterion, and by a considerable margin.

 

[Scorpus]

Criterion for being awarded a PP are:

• premiership points that a club has received over a period of years (with greater weight to recent seasons), (27 wins in 110 matches over 5 years, 8 wins over the most recent 2 years, 2 or 3 wins this year)
• a club's percentage (points for/points against x 100) over a period of years (another indication of on-field competitiveness, with greater weight to recent seasons), (70 percent average over 5 years, 60 percent this year, have not scored 100+ in a game for 3 years)
• any finals appearances that a club has made in recent seasons (2013 when we got bumped up from 9th due to Essendon being booted out for *)
• any premierships that a club has won in recent seasons, (last flag 1995) and
• a club's injury rates in each relevant season. (Unsure how this is weighted?)

We have at least an arguable case for a PP. If you're being objective, we clearly nail all those criterion, and by a considerable margin.

Carlton scored 100+ twice in 2016

 

[Malifice]

Carlton scored 100+ twice in 2016

Last time we did it was round 11 2016. Nearly 2 years ago.

Over 10 matches this year we're averaging slightly more than 9 goals 9 a game (65 points or so) at a percentage of 63 percent.

If we're applying the criterion for a PP (with greater weighting for recent seasons) we have a very strong argument for a PP.

 

[spenze]

Good post all round, but on this

In 2000 (riewoldts year) 13,14 and 20 netted

Ashley McGrath
Daniel Harris
Kane Cornes

Who in their right mind would give up Riewoldt for that lot?

Kane Cornes

 

[spenze]

Yeah, I don't think tanking, hiring an inept coach, trading out all your best players, trading in a bunch of spuds from GWS and playing a four man in front of centre game plan should be rewarded with a priority pick, maybe a fresh start in Tasmania but not a priority pick.

 

[spenze]

No it wasn’t. But he was THE super prospect

2001 was THE super draft
13,14,20 got

Nick Dal Santo
Ashley Watson
Daniel Elstone

2006
Jack Riewoldt
James Sellar
Tom Hislop

This is why no one is giving up pick 1

Jeez, just looked at the 2000 draft and you could just see Fantasia written all over our selections ( except for the likely accidental snagging of Stiffy) even the rookie selections were just ham fisted, go with what Rucci says selections. It was by no means a super draft but there was enough decent players to go deep into the second, maybe the third given how Carlton made us look like we nailed the draft in comparison

 

[Shaz2012]

Criterion for being awarded a PP are:

• premiership points that a club has received over a period of years (with greater weight to recent seasons), (27 wins in 110 matches over 5 years, 8 wins over the most recent 2 years, 2 or 3 wins this year)
• a club's percentage (points for/points against x 100) over a period of years (another indication of on-field competitiveness, with greater weight to recent seasons), (70 percent average over 5 years, 60 percent this year, have not scored 100+ in a game for 3 years)
• any finals appearances that a club has made in recent seasons (2013 when we got bumped up from 9th due to Essendon being booted out for *)
• any premierships that a club has won in recent seasons, (last flag 1995) and
• a club's injury rates in each relevant season. (Unsure how this is weighted?)

We have at least an arguable case for a PP. If you're being objective, we clearly nail all those criterion, and by a considerable margin.

If the AFL gives you a PP they are simply enabling you. There is no logical reason that Carlton should tick those boxes. Giving priority picks is not going to solve your problems as you have had ample high draft picks and it has not addressed your problem. Your a Vic team which doesnt have the retention problems of a club like Brisbane. You hardly travel out of Melbourne. You get the rub of the green with the umpires. Has there ever been another team in the AFL that is such a basket case and yet runs around telling everybody that will listen that everything is on the right track, that you have all these good young players and you will be a major finals force in 5 years (which like tomorrow, never comes).

 

[1990crow]

Lol Carlton fans back to hoping their club gets a priority pick to save them.
Eerily reminiscent of the years 2003-2008.
What a club.

 

[Malifice]

Yeah, I don't think tanking, hiring an inept coach, trading out all your best players, trading in a bunch of spuds from GWS and playing a four man in front of centre game plan should be rewarded with a priority pick, maybe a fresh start in Tasmania but not a priority pick.

All the players we traded asked to be traded (Henderson, Touhy, Yarran) and all barring Gibbs were OOC or free agents (Waite, Betts).

Free agents never leave for bottom teams. The net effect is bottom teams get stuck on the bottom, while top teams can keep topping up with free agents.

I've been more than happy with our GWS players taken considering the price we paid. Marchbank and Plownan look to be 10 year defenders for us, and I have high hopes for Kennedy and Pickett (injury has not let them have a proper run at it).

And do you think we've been taking for 5 years? I mean come on.

The PP rule exists to help struggling clubs. Which we clearly are.

Feel free to be critical of the rule, but under the rule as it exists we have a more than arguable case for a PP under the stated criterion.

And if you think Bolton is a dud coach you're in the minority.

 

[Malifice]

If the AFL gives you a PP they are simply enabling you. There is no logical reason that Carlton should tick those boxes. Giving priority picks is not going to solve your problems as you have had ample high draft picks and it has not addressed your problem. Your a Vic team which doesnt have the retention problems of a club like Brisbane. You hardly travel out of Melbourne. You get the rub of the green with the umpires. Has there ever been another team in the AFL that is such a basket case and yet runs around telling everybody that will listen that everything is on the right track, that you have all these good young players and you will be a major finals force in 5 years (which like tomorrow, never comes).

We've had 42 list changes in 3 years. Were literally starting from ground zero, starting 3 years ago.

But I'm not here to cop shit or have to deal with my club being trolled. I was asked a question as to how I think we qualify for a PP this year. Under the rules for qualifying for a PP, we fairly clearly do. There was an article on it this week in the Age making the same argument.

But yeah, 'lol carlton are shit with a dud coach and have been tanking for 5 years' or whatever.

 

[Shaz2012]

We've had 42 list changes in 3 years. Were literally starting from ground zero, starting 3 years ago.

Ok then. Good luck. Why is your hand out to the AFL? Get on with what you need to do. You dont deserve a reward for getting yourselves into that position, or for what your attempting to do.

 

[Malifice]

Ok then. Good luck. Why is your hand out to the AFL? Get on with what you need to do. You dont deserve a reward for getting yourselves into that position, or for what your attempting to do.

Everyone who is in this position gets themselves there. Ditto everyone who wins the flag gets themselves there.

Who has ever finished bottom of the ladder for reasons beyond their control?

Brisbane lost players making them shit, but even that comes down to them screwing up player retention.

This is our second rebuild post our draft sanctions at the start of the century. We ****ed the last one up by drafting the 3 number ones, getting Judd and thinking that was it. We ****ed our drafting from 2007 to 2014 (barring Cripps in 2013) with not a single player drafted via the ND still on the list from that period.

As we failed to generate players from the draft, we lost Betts, Waite, Henderson, Touhy Grigg, Gibbs, Robinson, Fevola Garlett, Yarran, Jacobs.

Accordingly when we spent a few years in finals, we got no further than the second week (twice) and the first week twice before crashing back out.

We found ourselves with zero young talent barring Cripps and limited top end talent (Simpson and the 3 number ones) come 2015. So we made the decision to start again and this time do it right.

Yes its our fault. But that isn't the criterion for a PP or else no one would ever get one.

 

[glengowan]

Not convinced Lukosious has the hard edge required. Plenty of talent. Not in the same class as Pavlich at same age (who is an all time great). Would pick Rankine ahead of him for the Crows.

 

[hey shorty]

What today showed, was that against the best our depth isn't going to cut it. Therefore it makes it even more crucial not to trade out all our picks to nab this kid, who is a forward and probably not high on the list of priorities with Fog And Himmelberg around.

What is clear, and has been for a while, is that we need to draft that super mid that we lack.