Banter Opposition Welcome - Freo Trade Hypotheticals

[manpurple]

I don't reckon our recruiting department gives a flying **** about points at all.

I would agree with that to a large extent. But the AFL maintains that the points were calculated based on trade history. From that perspective I would say that we would ask for a set of steak knives from Carlton.
400-500 points is a pick around 40 or perhaps a player.

Update:
So 1, 19 and 40 for Cerra and 6

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Joao]

I would agree with that to a large extent. But the AFL maintains that the points were calculated based on trade history. From that perspective I would say that we would ask for a set of steak knives from Carlton.
400-500 points is a pick around 40 or perhaps a player.

Update:
So 1, 19 and 40 for Cerra and 6

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Still wouldn't do it.

You don't trade two top 5 picks for 1 top 5 pick. Especially not when one of them has already played well at AFL level.

If Cerra says I want out this year to Carlton, it will be pick 1 or GTFO IMO.

 

[Taylor]

I think Cerra would be in the conversation for pick #1 with healthy shoulders in his draft year.

That makes it: pick #1 and pick #6 for pick #1, pick #19 and pick #40

If we divide both sides by pick #1 it becomes

pick #6 for pick #19 and pick #40 which is a terrible deal.

 

[Paracleet]

Actually I think they do take points in to account. Trading is a market and money was invented specifically to facilitate markets.
So it's not perfect since the value of half the market is fixed (the picks), but it's a better representation than just trading players and picks where people are going to value them differently but a point is always a point just a dollar is always a dollar.

 

[Joao]

Actually I think they do take points in to account. Trading is a market and money was invented specifically to facilitate markets.
So it's not perfect since the value of half the market is fixed (the picks), but it's a better representation than just trading players and picks where people are going to value them differently but a point is always a point just a dollar is always a dollar.

Disagree. Unless you have players you need points for it is just adding a layer of complexity for nothing. I'd back list managers to have a pretty good "feel" for what a reasonable deal is and not need a made up system to tell them.

If you have high end priority talent then of course it matters. In our case, we'll need a fair idea of where Carter and Medhat might go and prepare adequately but given they are likely later picks I doubt they will be spending heaps of time on it.

 

[Paracleet]

Disagree. Unless you have players you need points for it is just adding a layer of complexity for nothing. I'd back list managers to have a pretty good "feel" for what a reasonable deal is and not need a made up system to tell them.

If you have high end priority talent then of course it matters. In our case, we'll need a fair idea of where Carter and Medhat might go and prepare adequately but given they are likely later picks I doubt they will be spending heaps of time on it.

I'm sure they probably say things like that too, but then we end up with all these trades with 4th fourth round picks tacked on the end of them that mysteriously seem to zero out the points. Agree to disagree I suppose!

 

[Dirty_banchez]

Pick 5 to Geelong

Kelly + pick 16 to Freo

If Neale leaves. Use pick 16 on Ian Hill.

 

[Cobbler]

Pick 5 to Geelong

Kelly + pick 16 to Freo

If Neale leaves. Use pick 16 on Ian Hill.

We could do well on a sum of parts deal.

Pick 5 and 22 for Neale (hopefully we squeeze more)

Pick 5 for Kelly and 16 (they’ll probably squeeze more)

Whatever we squeeze extra out of Brisbane effectively is given to Geelong.

But the main net effect would be:
Lose Neale.
Gain Kelly, 16 and 22.

16 and 22 used on either Hill or Stack and the other pick on whoever.

Plus don’t forget we’d still have our own pick 6.

 

[SHill Shall]

We could do well on a sum of parts deal.

Pick 5 and 22 for Neale (hopefully we squeeze more)

Pick 5 for Kelly and 16 (they’ll probably squeeze more)

Whatever we squeeze extra out of Brisbane effectively is given to Geelong.

But the main net effect would be:
Lose Neale.
Gain Kelly, 16 and 22.

16 and 22 used on either Hill or Stack and the other pick on whoever.

Plus don’t forget we’d still have our own pick 6.

If we get 5 and 22 from Brisbane, let’s just go to the draft with that?

 

[Cobbler]

If we get 5 and 22 from Brisbane, let’s just go to the draft with that?

I’m happy with that too, but Kelly would give us a ready made Neale replacement. So was illustrating how possibly losing Neale could have a massive net gain.

Neale for Kelly, 16 and 22 would have to be considered a massive win.

Neale for 5 and 22 would be a bit meh.

 

[Taylor]

Mundy to the middle, Hill forward

 

[Freoforever86]

I’m happy with that too, but Kelly would give us a ready made Neale replacement. So was illustrating how possibly losing Neale could have a massive net gain.

Neale for Kelly, 16 and 22 would have to be considered a massive win.

Neale for 5 and 22 would be a bit meh.

Blakely & Tucker could go to Neales role. Tucker’s body is built for Inside mid. Back pocket and half forward don’t suit him

 

[DaveLister]

Blakely & Tucker could go to Neales role. Tucker’s body is built for Inside mid. Back pocket and half forward don’t suit him

Tucker's ball winning ability is more suited for WAFL than AFL

 

[Freoforever86]

Tucker's ball winning ability is more suited for WAFL than AFL

Played bugger all mid minutes for Freo. Throw him in there.

 

[Nodgey]

Blakely & Tucker could go to Neales role. Tucker’s body is built for Inside mid. Back pocket and half forward don’t suit him

Tucker has never screamed inside mid to me. Maybe a breust-like forward? He just appears disinterested at times. Like Sherro. Yet totally unlike Mundy who also appears laconic. He needs a langdon-like breakout year in 2019.

 

[Galvo]

Tucker has never screamed inside mid to me. Maybe a breust-like forward? He just appears disinterested at times. Like Sherro. Yet totally unlike Mundy who also appears laconic. He needs a langdon-like breakout year in 2019.

How do you think would Langdon go playing more inside?

Could add a bit of pace around the ball to improve our spread and defence at stoggages.

Put S.Hill back on the wing instead and Langdon can feed it to him and his brother a bit more in the open.

 

[Arcassius]

Groin Guru just comes off as an idiot to me.

Snake Baker is a master troll on the level of Dirty Banchez.

That's a pretty low bar

 

[Danny82]

I think brayshaw would be perfect in the Neale role. Once he and cerra have good off seasons they are two good options. Move Blakely to the middle also.

Would anyone consider pittard from port? Would allow us to get hill and blakely off half back and into midfield.

Wouldn’t mind Blake acres if going cheap ie future 3rd type deal, maybe a future 2nd with a 3rd coming back this year

 

[Freoforever86]

Tucker has never screamed inside mid to me. Maybe a breust-like forward? He just appears disinterested at times. Like Sherro. Yet totally unlike Mundy who also appears laconic. He needs a langdon-like breakout year in 2019.

Draft profile was half back/mid.
I just think his body type may suit inside mid. Who knows

I think brayshaw would be perfect in the Neale role. Once he and cerra have good off seasons they are two good options. Move Blakely to the middle also.

Would anyone consider pittard from port? Would allow us to get hill and blakely off half back and into midfield.

Wouldn’t mind Blake acres if going cheap ie future 3rd type deal, maybe a future 2nd with a 3rd coming back this year

Acres would cost us a 1st rounder.

Agree Hill and Blakely need more mid minutes. Wasted on half back imo.

 

[Taylor]

Pittard is more of a shank merchant than the guy who shows up on tv around Australia day

 

[Dirty_banchez]

That's a pretty low bar

I am the smartest person on the internet. I have no need to troll.

 

[Nodgey]

How do you think would Langdon go playing more inside?

Could add a bit of pace around the ball to improve our spread and defence at stoggages.

Put S.Hill back on the wing instead and Langdon can feed it to him and his brother a bit more in the open.

Anything’s worth a try, and all players should roll through the middle at some stage, but you don’t want to sacrifice his outside run too much.

 

[apuchar]

Only good quarter Tucker played all year, is when we played him as inside mid. Still baffled why we didn't give him more of a go in there.

 

[purplerunsdeep]

I still have faith in Tucker, not sure where he stagnated this year. The flux in the team and transitioning maybe have affected him solidifying one spot and making it his. I don’t want to trade him, he will come good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bicco]

Only good quarter Tucker played all year, is when we played him as inside mid. Still baffled why we didn't give him more of a go in there.

Because unfortunately Tucker is another of the (possibly) dozens of players that Lyon has played in positions that he wants them to play, not where they should play.