List Mgmt. Pick 9

[Jeremias]

Still think we may look to move this pick on draft night.

9 for 23 + 28
9 + 57 for 16 + 34
9 + 43 for 17 + 24
9 + 43 + 57 for 15 + 20
9 + 2020 2nd for 26 + 27 + Melbourne's 2020 1st
9 + 57 for 18 + 29
9 for 19 + 39
9 for 25 + 32

 

[Love the Drake]

Just had a look at Lachie Ash on the AFL website. Projected to go around top 10 of this years draft.
Yes...they are highlights. But I liked what I saw.
Has electrifying pace. Good skills and not scared to take the game on.
Loved how he took hold of the crunch moment of the game against South Australia, took on his opponent and delivered the ball perfectly to his forward at the key moment of the match.
Would happily take him at 9.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

The club came out at the start of trade period, very strongly, stating that we need small forwards. It was and still is a list deficiency. We have Eddie for a year and did not get Papley.

If there is a gun small/ mid forward around our pick we should be taking him. Serong, Flanders could play this role but will likely be gone. I wouldn't be upset if picked Weightmen.. he is projected around the mark and would likely play very early.

I do not want to replicate what we have done in recent drafts with more mids and KPP. There is no short term benefit in doing this and I think we have enough young talent in these positions already. We still have Murphy and Curnow while the younger brigade continue to develop.

The other pick I would seriously consider is the ruckmen from WA. he has some elite hands in close and excellent ground follow up.

I think best available around our Pick 9 are mids: Kemp, Stephens, Robertson, or a slider ... or maybe Ash who’s said to be a small defender.

We actually need class midfielders as we do not bat that deep in midfield, especially if you take Murphy and Ed Curnow out. Polson is unlikely to make it. More critical mass in midfield I say.

 

[GT619]

Just had a look at Lachie Ash on the AFL website. Projected to go around top 10 of this years draft.
Yes...they are highlights. But I liked what I saw.
Has electrifying pace. Good skills and not scared to take the game on.
Loved how he took hold of the crunch moment of the game against South Australia, took on his opponent and delivered the ball perfectly to his forward at the key moment of the match.
Would happily take him at 9.

Kicked it to kemp who kicked the winner

 

[GT619]

I think best available around our Pick 9 are mids: Kemp, Stephens, Robertson, or a slider ... or maybe Ash who’s said to be a small defender.

We actually need class midfielders as we do not bat that deep in midfield, especially if you take Murphy and Ed Curnow out. Polson is unlikely to make it. More critical mass in midfield I say.

I agree, if those three are available we will definitely draft them

 

[Macca43]

Still think we may look to move this pick on draft night.

9 for 23 + 28
9 + 57 for 16 + 34
9 + 43 for 17 + 24
9 + 43 + 57 for 15 + 20
9 + 2020 2nd for 26 + 27 + Melbourne's 2020 1st
9 + 57 for 18 + 29
9 for 19 + 39
9 for 25 + 32

I have my doubts, and if we did we would want much more than 23 & 28. After all 6 got 12 & 18.

 

[footyfan1978]

I thought Melbourne traded down to ensure they got Weightman ahead of us?

Got no idea if Dees are wanting Weightman. All I know is the talk from those in industry on radio has Weightman more taken in teens. Not pick 9.
I only paid a lot of attention to him as we need a specialist small forward and he is the most obvious one in the draft that could be taken in top 15 or so picks.
I'm not even sure we will take him. Got no idea what SOS. Brodie and Agresta are thinking. We may just pick the best available at 9 and think Weightman is too early then. I just want an elite small forward or mid with our pick. Would not even be against upgrading earlier to get Serong if it was possible.
GWS might be open to a pick swap if they more interested in points value than actual number of their first pick.

 

[Stamos]

Still think we may look to move this pick on draft night.

9 for 23 + 28
9 + 57 for 16 + 34
9 + 43 for 17 + 24
9 + 43 + 57 for 15 + 20
9 + 2020 2nd for 26 + 27 + Melbourne's 2020 1st
9 + 57 for 18 + 29
9 for 19 + 39
9 for 25 + 32

If we were considering any of those deals, we would have just done the Martin trade. We may trade down, but it will be for much more than what you're proposing.

#9 has good value this year.

 

[DangerousD]

Like the sound of Robertson and happy to take him with pick 9.
But for the sake of the discussion, let’s say he’s gone before then.
Fremantle have pick 10 and Hawthorn pick 11.
Both have players expected to be around that mark, Henry for Fremantle and Maginness for Hawthorn.
I’m sure Silvagni could indicate to both clubs that we are intending to take their player with our pick 9 which would force them to match the bid and miss out on taking another player with their respective picks 10 & 11 before paying for a matched bid on their players with later picks.
Basically, we could say to both clubs, we’ll trade our pick 9 to you for your pick 10 or 11, but whoever throws in the best sweetener gets the deal whilst the other club loses the chance and will be forced to match the bid on their player with their pick 10 or 11.
For example :
Fremantle offer pick 10 and a 3rd rounder
Hawthorn offer pick 11 and a 2nd rounder
We accept Hawthorn’s offer and basically pick up a 2nd rounder for free.
That 2nd rounder could even be a future 2nd rounder that could help us land targeted players in the trade period next year.
Suddenly, the game is on and we might be able to make a very good hand of the cards we hold.
Then we add Martin for free in the PSD and we’re loaded with picks and cash for another crack at Papley next year ...

If the bid from us was considerable above where those teams rate those guys, then I can see both calling our bluff and then SOs would look like a pelican, too big of a risk.

 

[Gethelred]

The hockey metaphor is spot on.

You are trying to solve a problem that may already be solved. The young midfielders we have will improve rapidly over next couple of years like many of the young players on the list. You can’t keep burning draft capital on the same position just because it isn’t completely fixed today.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Notice the use of the word 'may' in there. I don't care for leaving our fate to chance; I'm not much of a gambler. What I am is someone who prefers to hedge my bets, to ensure that if plan A (Stocker, Setterfield, Kennedy, etc) don't come off, we have acceptable plan B's waiting behind them.

And it's interesting how people were perfectly content to supposedly 'burn' our draft capital on KPD's when we had them in surplus, but when midfielders are far more numerous, varied and possibly more required than KPD's are, especially when you consider the fact that you can unearth KPD's from throughout the draft easily, but the elite mids generally come from within the first round.

Conversation's moved on from this, so I'll pipe down a bit. Just think people are too willing to rely on what we already have in house, just as Adelaide did when they made their run 3-4 years ago. They were able to use system and quick ball movement from the back half coupled with a dynamic forward line to fake midfield dominance despite not having a dominant midfield for about 3 years before people figured it out. They were thin, and they knew it. I don't want the same mistake to be made here.

 

[Gethelred]

Yeah the upside is huge, unfortunately the downside is also huge, if as I’ve heard they have managed to fix his recurring calf injuries then absolutely worth a rookie spot as he is 1 that has elite talent and then some, only thing would be is he a risk in terms of our current outstanding culture.

How so?

I would be very surprised if there wasn't people already on our list doing things they shouldn't be doing. Chuck any group of young people into an extremely high pressure environment with a significant amount of money at their disposal, and almost all of them would have similar problems. The key with Bennel is ensuring his attitude to preparation, rehab and training stays sufficiently high, to bring out his best footy.

Don't think the club will go down this road, though. We're going through a bit of a 'holier than thou' phase, based on Daisy's retirement.

 

[Red Bull]

If the bid from us was considerable above where those teams rate those guys, then I can see both calling our bluff and then SOs would look like a pelican, too big of a risk.

Those 2 players are very much rated and in the mix for that selection.
The 2 clubs concerned would almost definitely match our bid therefore, the deal we could offer with everything considered might be very appealing to both clubs.
The point is, even if both clubs refused the deal and let their respective players go, both players are rated at that pick and would be great selections for Carlton.

 

[THE_GUN]

Still think we may look to move this pick on draft night.


9 + 2020 2nd for 26 + 27 + Melbourne's 2020 1st
9 + 57 for 18 + 29
9 for 19 + 39
9 for 25 + 32

I would jump at #9 for #19+#39 and even throw in pick #56

 

[HARKER]

Notice the use of the word 'may' in there. I don't care for leaving our fate to chance; I'm not much of a gambler. What I am is someone who prefers to hedge my bets, to ensure that if plan A (Stocker, Setterfield, Kennedy, etc) don't come off, we have acceptable plan B's waiting behind them.

And it's interesting how people were perfectly content to supposedly 'burn' our draft capital on KPD's when we had them in surplus, but when midfielders are far more numerous, varied and possibly more required than KPD's are, especially when you consider the fact that you can unearth KPD's from throughout the draft easily, but the elite mids generally come from within the first round.

Conversation's moved on from this, so I'll pipe down a bit. Just think people are too willing to rely on what we already have in house, just as Adelaide did when they made their run 3-4 years ago. They were able to use system and quick ball movement from the back half coupled with a dynamic forward line to fake midfield dominance despite not having a dominant midfield for about 3 years before people figured it out. They were thin, and they knew it. I don't want the same mistake to be made here.

You can do this all day long though -

Have we enough Key forwards?
Have we enough Small forwards?
Have we enough of and the right ruckmen?
Have we enough speed in the backline and around the ground?

One has to back themselves in as otherwise what's the point?
We only have 44 spots on the list and you can't saturate it with similar types......just in case. It just presents problems elsewhere. Balance, balance, balance...

 

[Gethelred]

You can do this all day long though -

Have we enough Key forwards?

Yes.

Have we enough Small forwards?

No.

Have we enough of and the right ruckmen?

Possibly; wait and see. 3 rucks on a list is enough, given the able backup we have in Levi and Harry.

Have we enough speed in the backline and around the ground?

I'm fairly well established on here as saying that raw speed is overrated, and I think that as far as speed is concerned you are better off having good users of the ball capable of kicking long distances than you are quick players running the ball. However, speed - provided it's coupled with that - would not be a bad thing.

See how easy that was? 'How long is a piece of string' arguments actually need to be endless before they can become absurd, and this is clearly not one of those times. We do not have enough mids; we are short 2-4, depending on the quality of the individuals gotten in. That we are short midfielders seems to be something we agree on, otherwise why would you think Coniglio would be perfect for us?

One has to back themselves in as otherwise what's the point?
We only have 44 spots on the list and you can't saturate it with similar types......just in case. It just presents problems elsewhere. Balance, balance, balance...

One has to minimise risk wherever you can; otherwise, Levi would not be as valuable, JSOS would not have played as many games as he has, and Doc would've played late last year. In list management - my enthusiastic amateur's take on it, at least - one needs to be able to provide multiple options, so that if one falters or suffers setbacks one has alternate possibilities.

 

[murphster]

Just had a look at Lachie Ash on the AFL website. Projected to go around top 10 of this years draft.
Yes...they are highlights. But I liked what I saw.
Has electrifying pace. Good skills and not scared to take the game on.
Loved how he took hold of the crunch moment of the game against South Australia, took on his opponent and delivered the ball perfectly to his forward at the key moment of the match.
Would happily take him at 9.

And that forward that slotted the goal from 45 was Kemp.

 

[murphster]

If the bid from us was considerable above where those teams rate those guys, then I can see both calling our bluff and then SOs would look like a pelican, too big of a risk.

Not a risk at all would be more than happy to end up with Henry or McGinness.

 

[Jeremias]

I have my doubts, and if we did we would want much more than 23 & 28. After all 6 got 12 & 18.

If we were considering any of those deals, we would have just done the Martin trade. We may trade down, but it will be for much more than what you're proposing.

#9 has good value this year.

Not suggesting we take any of the deals, just posting equivalent values taking into consideration the picks certain teams currently hold.

Happy to keep 9, but would also certainly consider any deal that keeps us in the first round but brings forward a subsequent selection.

 

[ray8182]

Notice the use of the word 'may' in there. I don't care for leaving our fate to chance; I'm not much of a gambler. What I am is someone who prefers to hedge my bets, to ensure that if plan A (Stocker, Setterfield, Kennedy, etc) don't come off, we have acceptable plan B's waiting behind them.

And it's interesting how people were perfectly content to supposedly 'burn' our draft capital on KPD's when we had them in surplus, but when midfielders are far more numerous, varied and possibly more required than KPD's are, especially when you consider the fact that you can unearth KPD's from throughout the draft easily, but the elite mids generally come from within the first round.

Conversation's moved on from this, so I'll pipe down a bit. Just think people are too willing to rely on what we already have in house, just as Adelaide did when they made their run 3-4 years ago. They were able to use system and quick ball movement from the back half coupled with a dynamic forward line to fake midfield dominance despite not having a dominant midfield for about 3 years before people figured it out. They were thin, and they knew it. I don't want the same mistake to be made here.

You’re not hedging your bets. You’re continually doubling down on the same position leaving other areas vulnerable. Your building a one dimensional portfolio and as a result are exposed to even more risk. How do you like that analogy?

There will always be an element of uncertainty on whether we have certain areas covered. That’s why the word “may” is used. But you don’t leave gaping holes in one area so you can feel good about another. Inside midfielders aren’t the secret to success. We need quality players all over the ground with unique and different skills and attributes.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gethelred]

You’re not hedging your bets. You’re continually doubling down on the same position leaving other areas vulnerable. Your building a one dimensional portfolio and as a result are exposed to even more risk. How do you like that analogy?

There will always be an element of uncertainty on whether we have certain areas covered. That’s why the word “may” is used. But you don’t leave gaping holes in one area so you can feel good about another. Inside midfielders aren’t the secret to success. We need quality players all over the ground with unique and different skills and attributes.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Except - to follow your analogy - where you see that, what I see is an excessively diversified portfolio coupled with inadequate attention provided to key business areas necessary to turn a profit, and hoping that strengths in other areas will paper over the cracks.

This is also where metaphors begin to cease being useful. We're talking a list, and taking an investment's view of a list when there are only a certain number of positions and players possible, and you have far less options to manipulate your list over a single trade/draft period, and what stocks would be safe/conservative choices do not suddenly suffer from sudden dropoffs in performance (all things being equal) the way senior players can. Judd went from a titan onfield to being injury prone and done within the space of 1.5 seasons.

Painting a current portrait of the team, we have 3 capable AFL top tier midfielders in Murphy, Cripps and Walsh; Ed is useful, but is not an A grader; plenty of people can and will take exception to this, and that's fine. Outside of this, we have Gibbons, Fisher, LOB, Stocker, Kennedy, Setterfield, Dow, SPS. If we're talking genuine inside mids - seeing as Deven Robertson is the sticking point here, and I don't want to spend pick 9 on him - we have Cripps, Kennedy and Stocker, SPS; Kennedy has not displayed inside potential for a whole match at AFL level, and nor has Stocker. SPS has done so for a single game, and that was as outside an inside game can be; he will in all probability become a mixed mid anyway (in/out) due to his skillset. Dow has done it as a junior, but he is more useful potentially as an in/out mid, and he's never earned possessions above 25 in a game of AFL footy. Jack is not an inside mid yet, either; he's capable enough, and if we were to swing him in there to attempt to find one of those 2-4 mids I feel we lack and to free up one of the others, I'd not be opposed.

So, in summary, we have 2 players of the younger list who can play inside at an AFL level if we take away Murphy and Ed, only if one counts Walsh who is more a balanced mid.

Your post also ignores the diversity of talent that can exist within a midfield. We are in small danger of becoming another St Kilda, full of similar types, but we are in real danger of becoming a 2016-18 Adelaide, minus the camp nonsense.

 

[Triniboy]

Until you see this lad up close you don’t realise how physically strong he actually is .


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Always draft the best available talent no matter what position they play in junior footy...in the 50+ years following VFL/AFL I’ve seen many players recruited play a different role/position than where they played junior footy..we need players “with hurt/intimidating factor” ...that soften-up and hurt the opposition..this boy has it all...he reminds me of Mark Riccciuto

 

[JustaBattler]

Yep we've been a developed A grade on baller short of a serious AFL midfield for a while now. If there was ANY chance to grab Ollie Wines - I would have. So fingers crossed we can smoke and mirror the need away - for a year and still climb the ladder.

 

[Eiffel 65]

Still think we may look to move this pick on draft night.

9 for 23 + 28
9 + 57 for 16 + 34
9 + 43 for 17 + 24
9 + 43 + 57 for 15 + 20
9 + 2020 2nd for 26 + 27 + Melbourne's 2020 1st
9 + 57 for 18 + 29
9 for 19 + 39
9 for 25 + 32

I was originally leaning towards that strategy, but if we add Newnes, Gray and Martin, our squad will already start to look a lot deeper.

The other thing is that top 10 picks will start to become non-existent for us in a year or two when we start making finals.

If we want another pick, trade our 2020 2nd rounder into this years draft.

Keep in mind we're potentially gaining between 3-5 starting 22 players and only losing 1 (Dale Thomas).

I'm starting to find it difficult to name a best 22.

 

[windows1]

Still think we may look to move this pick on draft night.

9 for 23 + 28
9 + 57 for 16 + 34
9 + 43 for 17 + 24
9 + 43 + 57 for 15 + 20
9 + 2020 2nd for 26 + 27 + Melbourne's 2020 1st
9 + 57 for 18 + 29
9 for 19 + 39
9 for 25 + 32

Jeremias in my observations the earlier pick in the trade seems to bring a premium above the points approach. If it’s worth 1469 you can probably add 400-500 on what ‘trading down’ would generate.

Not a long way off 15 and 20.....

 

[windows1]

Gray is in the mix now? Eiffel65?