Moneyball

Remove this Banner Ad

Tarkyn_24 said:
Yep GWS are indifferent between picks 18 and 19 for Kelly and 1 and 2. Basically the same thing.


:oops:
Click to expand...

Crows are winning a flag next season?!?!?

Doesn’t matter what GWS would think, if they (or another theoretical club in the same position) have a player nominate a club and that player is also out of contract, 99% of the time the deal gets done. If we only have pick 10 or 18 (as you seem to think the Crows will go all Essendon 2000 on us next season) then that’s all we can use.

Also everyone is conveniently forgetting Stocker is quite highly rated and only really slid to 19 because he was injured for the state carnival. Read the Stocker thread in the draft forum, he was seen as a gun until we got him then suddenly lol Carlton.

And I do get it. Everyone assumes because of our on field position and general ineptness on and off the field for a long period of time that whatever do we is bound to backfire. We are trying what we and others haven’t done before, which I am happy with.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I’m fairly certain gws would probably look elsewhere if they are getting pick 10 or more. Pick 1-2 gets you a seat at the table.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Tarkyn_24 said:
You said it didn’t matter.

I’m bewildered by the absolute tripe coming out of your mouth. Of course it matters.
Click to expand...

Worst case scenario is we win the spoon they win the flag and Stocker is a dud and the pick 1 in 2019 is GAJ and Judd rolled into 1.

I will agree if the pick difference is 10 spots or more if begins to look more questionable, but it still depends on how Stocker and the players next year used with those picks turn out before we will know how it’s panned out.
 
ManOfClay said:
Yeah I’m fairly certain gws would probably look elsewhere if they are getting pick 10 or more. Pick 1-2 gets you a seat at the table.
Click to expand...

They would get our first rounder in 2020 as well. They did accept pick 9 and Essendons first rounder in 2019 for shiel.

So the theory goes instead of giving 2 first rounders for an established player, we can do the same thing plus also have Stocker.

It could go completely **** up, but what I’ve seen so far since SOS has been around there tends to be lots of moving pieces with these moves.
 
Blue1980 said:
Crows are winning a flag next season?!?!?

Doesn’t matter what GWS would think, if they (or another theoretical club in the same position) have a player nominate a club and that player is also out of contract, 99% of the time the deal gets done. If we only have pick 10 or 18 (as you seem to think the Crows will go all Essendon 2000 on us next season) then that’s all we can use.

Also everyone is conveniently forgetting Stocker is quite highly rated and only really slid to 19 because he was injured for the state carnival. Read the Stocker thread in the draft forum, he was seen as a gun until we got him then suddenly lol Carlton.

And I do get it. Everyone assumes because of our on field position and general ineptness on and off the field for a long period of time that whatever do we is bound to backfire. We are trying what we and others haven’t done before, which I am happy with.
Click to expand...
Cute edit.

If you don’t have the necessary position to make a deal happen either GWS have to somewhat accept getting shafted, or you have to find a way with the hand you’re dealt to pony up more. There’s a huge difference between compensating a team with 5 and 9 to say 11 and 14, and that only gets exacerbated the close to the elite talent (ie. #1 draft pick) you are. The higher the draft pick, the more certain you can be going into the draft with what you’ll come out with. There’s a huge difference entering with pick 5 vs pick 10 for that reason alone.
 
Tarkyn_24 said:
Cute edit.

If you don’t have the necessary position to make a deal happen either GWS have to somewhat accept getting shafted, or you have to find a way with the hand you’re dealt to pony up more. There’s a huge difference between compensating a team with 5 and 9 to say 11 and 14, and that only gets exacerbated the close to the elite talent (ie. #1 draft pick) you are. The higher the draft pick, the more certain you can be going into the draft with what you’ll come out with. There’s a huge difference entering with pick 5 vs pick 10 for that reason alone.
Click to expand...

Even if we had a top 5 pick next season they would want our 2020 pick as well.

So the logic is we can still get our man and have Stocker on top.

It’s quite possible it could work for both clubs. Not every trade has to be great for one club and a disaster for another
 
Blue1980 said:
Even if we had a top 5 pick next season they would want our 2020 pick as well.

So the logic is we can still get our man and have Stocker on top.

It’s quite possible it could work for both clubs. Not every trade has to be great for one club and a disaster for another
Click to expand...
A club won’t deal just because it’s a first rounder though.

Any club would take 1 and 24 over 15 and 17 in a deal. You make this cute deal and then Adelaide finish higher than expected and GWS would be well within their rights to tell you to * off with two first rounders where one is late in that first round order.
 
OnceWeWereKings said:
Can I ask how you're "fairly certain"
Can I ask if you understand the definition of the word certain ? It's normally not prefaced by the word "fairly"
Can I ask why you would use the words "certain" and "probably" in the same sentence? They seem a little contradictory for such an "expert" who "rips nuffies apart" with counter argument.
Click to expand...


It’s a turn of phrase and if that’s all you can pick on out of sheer spite then I’m in a good spot.
 
Blue1980 said:
They would get our first rounder in 2020 as well. They did accept pick 9 and Essendons first rounder in 2019 for shiel.

.
Click to expand...

Kelly is much better than Shiel.

The point is there is a vast difference in value between pick 2 and pick 10 no matter how you spin it
 
Blue1980 said:
Even if we had a top 5 pick next season they would want our 2020 pick as well.

So the logic is we can still get our man and have Stocker on top.

It’s quite possible it could work for both clubs. Not every trade has to be great for one club and a disaster for another
Click to expand...
I get it. You're essentially getting an additional player. If you Are trading your picks next year for players, because you’re done drafting, it makes sense.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tarkyn_24 said:
A club won’t deal just because it’s a first rounder though.

Any club would take 1 and 24 over 15 and 17 in a deal. You make this cute deal and then Adelaide finish higher than expected and GWS would be well within their rights to tell you to **** off with two first rounders where one is late in that first round order.
Click to expand...
You think we finishing top 2 in 2020? Why thank you.

Outplayed yet again young blood!
 
Blue1980 said:
It won’t matter if we are trading it.

Say if a Kelly type nominates is, GWS would want 2 first rounders regardless of whether we had 2 or 10 next year. So we would give said club Adelaide’s first next year and our own the year after.
Click to expand...
You think that the value of the two first rounders does not matter?

I would take pick 2 over pick 10 and 11 any day :thumbsu:
 
Buzzasto DaSilva said:
You think that the value of the two first rounders does not matter?

I would take pick 2 over pick 10 and 11 any day :thumbsu:
Click to expand...
I think it's fair to say the market will be determined by the trade assets of those trying to get him.

Now realistically he's more likely than not to stay at GWS.

Out of the Vic clubs:

Richmond and Collingwood will be capped out
Hawthorn won't have the assets
Essendon won't have the assets

So it's out of Saints, Carlton and North

North will have similar assets to us. Saints could probably offer better, but will he choose them?
 
I doubt you can build a proper team culture and team continuity these days just poaching most of your 22 from other clubs.

Sure, bring in talent to improve the list, but I'm not sure this strategy will work. It's very hit and miss though, itl either be genius from SOS or a bust. His strategy of just get players I like from GWS is unique because he worked there he may know them better than others or he may be bias towards them.

Bolton certainly needs to start winning games for SOS to start feeling vindicated. They have been nothing short of awful under him.
 
Fozdog said:
I get it. You're essentially getting an additional player. If you Are trading your picks next year for players, because you’re done drafting, it makes sense.
Click to expand...
Done drafting LOL.

They literally have that much dead weight.

Kruezer, Simpson, Murphy, Thomas, Curnow are all near the end.

Half of the current list are holding onto afl careers by a string.

Not sure what you mean by done drafting by they have so much work to go.
 
Tarkyn_24 said:
A club won’t deal just because it’s a first rounder though.

Any club would take 1 and 24 over 15 and 17 in a deal. You make this cute deal and then Adelaide finish higher than expected and GWS would be well within their rights to tell you to **** off with two first rounders where one is late in that first round order.
Click to expand...

They may, but how often do deals not get done once a player nominates a club?
 
ManOfClay said:
Kelly is much better than Shiel.

The point is there is a vast difference in value between pick 2 and pick 10 no matter how you spin it
Click to expand...

I’m aware there is obviously a difference, but will the difference end up being great enough to get Stocker?

It could work for both clubs, Adelaide get a gun and Stocker is a gun, then everyone is happy.

Thing is we don’t know how much difference there will be in those picks next year and we obviously internally rated Stocker higher than 19 on our own list.
 
Buzzasto DaSilva said:
You think that the value of the two first rounders does not matter?

I would take pick 2 over pick 10 and 11 any day :thumbsu:
Click to expand...

Doesn’t matter as much if an out of contract player nominates us, no. Clubs can’t demand a top 5 pick if we don’t have one.

We may have to do some maneuvering with future 2nd/3rd rounders or whatever.

When was the last club who denied a player moving to a nominated club out of contract to let him go for nothing? Port with Nick Stevens?

Again we may not necessarily be getting Kelly but it could be someone in a similar position to him.

If we are done drafting as much this trade makes perfect sense.

People have complained we have too many kids and not gone for any experienced types or what not, and i feel that is exactly what we will do.
 
Blue1980 said:
Doesn’t matter as much if an out of contract player nominates us, no. Clubs can’t demand a top 5 pick if we don’t have one.

We may have to do some maneuvering with future 2nd/3rd rounders or whatever.

When was the last club who denied a player moving to a nominated club out of contract to let him go for nothing? Port with Nick Stevens?

Again we may not necessarily be getting Kelly but it could be someone in a similar position to him.

If we are done drafting as much this trade makes perfect sense.

People have complained we have too many kids and not gone for any experienced types or what not, and i feel that is exactly what we will do.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that is a long bow to draw based on one trade purely involving draft picks....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PieLebo87
Collingwood’s Moneyball
2 3 4 5
Replies
106
Views
4K
owen87
owen87

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top