I really wish we could have got Watts. Really rate him, cheap on the salary cap hit due to Melbourne, and would have happily paid GWS's 2018 second.Port are paying $80,000 of Lobbe contract and Melbourne are paying $150,000 of Watts contract.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I really wish we could have got Watts. Really rate him, cheap on the salary cap hit due to Melbourne, and would have happily paid GWS's 2018 second.Port are paying $80,000 of Lobbe contract and Melbourne are paying $150,000 of Watts contract.
Don't worry I still have the feeling of doom within me. If I say 'next dusty' I am thinking about the chopsticksThat’s exactly what our supporters are saying .
Media narrative was Stringer with his massive off field issues must be taken into account . Once he was traded the likes of Ralph Wiggum were rattling on about him being the “next Dusty”. The bloke regardless of any supporting alliance has massive off field issues that just don’t miraculously disappear once he wears a different polo in a photo shoot . All clubs posture ,including Essendon ( Crameri pick 4 resonates)
Yeah there has to be some behind the scenes reason for not chasing rocky. Some combo of age and salary maybe. The club came out very early against it.I agree , Essendon have added class but im worried Smith , Stringer and Saad all run one direction and dont win the footy back .
Thought a Rockliff wouldve been perfect for them .
Winners :
1st Fremantle
2nd Port Adelaide
3rd Carlton & Essendon
Losers :
1st North Melbourne
2nd Sydney
3rd StKilda
Collingwood needs to be in the losers column...they did worse than nothing like the 3 teams you put.
Pretty hard to judge Collingwood, but chances are good we make the list after the wash up.
Collingwood are all in for tom lynch 2018
That makes no sense at all.Tell that to the AFL .
If we think the gifted pick 19 to land Ablett had a whiff about it , imagine the lengths they'll go to in keeping Lynch on the Gold Coast .
Sure it doesn'tThat makes no sense at all.
I think it's safe to say our plan is to get more elite talent in, because there are questionable amounts of it on our list at present (especially with Paddy- who a lot of our rebuild would have centred around- struggling to stay on the park), in particular if they have class and speed, so we went after Fyfe initially and also went hard for Kelly, but neither of them were willing to leave their clubs (it certainly didn't help that each club got a $2mil boost to their salary caps this year, making it much easier to retain those they really wanted to keep) and after that it was a question of whether we thought anyone else was worth trading a top 8 pick for (a pick that could be a decent opportunity to grab some elite talent), or downgrading a top 8 pick for, and I guess we didn't see many or any who we thought were.15. St Kilda - Needed to do more. Not sure what their plan is. I thought they would have the cap space, the promise (i.e. just outside the 8 aiming to go in) and the plan to go hard this trade period. They seemed to put a lot of eggs in the Tomlinson basket which was odd.
I think it's safe to say our plan is to get more elite talent in, because there are questionable amounts of it on our list at present (especially with Paddy- who a lot of our rebuild would have centred around- struggling to stay on the park), in particular if they have class and speed, so we went after Fyfe initially and also went hard for Kelly, but neither of them were willing to leave their clubs (it certainly didn't help that each club got a $2mil boost to their salary caps this year, making it much easier to retain those they really wanted to keep) and after that it was a question of whether we thought anyone else was worth trading a top 8 pick for (a pick that could be a decent opportunity to grab some elite talent), or downgrading a top 8 pick for, and I guess we didn't see many or any who we thought were.
We also didn't have a 2nd rounder for this year to play with, which probably made it harder to go for those "lesser lights".
One thing we also wanted to add to was our tall defensive stocks, hence having a go at Tomlinson, but when that didn't happen, we went to what we presumably considered to be our next best option, which was Austin, who I think is a fine depth addition (all we potentially need for the moment), with the scope to be best 22 in time, if not immediately.
When you're sitting on a good draft hand and don't want to lose it and end up in the poor part of a weak draft, and are in no mad rush to shoot up the ladder (because you have such a young list, with very few vital pieces anywhere near retirement age), it can be better to not do much than to blow your wad on something that's not worth it, just to make it look like you're doing something.
So now we have what is expected to be a very competitive team, but the least experienced list in the comp, and we get to add two more from the top 8 of a ND to it and potentially one more from the top 10 next year, and we still have a truckload of cap space free to go after the Sloane/Gaff types who are due to come OOC in 12 months time.
I don't have them or a link on hand, but apparently according to the site that covers that sort of stuff we moved to 2nd least experienced list after Riewoldt, Montagna and Dempster came off our books, and then were going to drop down to least experienced once Hodge joined Brisbane- although come to think of it I'm not sure how the loss of Rockliff affected that, so perhaps we're still 17th for experience. Haven't heard an update there.Do you have stats on the experience of each list?
Not doubting your claim just be interested to see how you worked it out (or if there is an updated summary somewhere).
I can't believe everyone ranking Carlton's trade period the number 1,. And please don't think i'm just a scorned crows fan because of the Gibbs deal,.
Based on next season's ladder positions being the same (which now that they've lost Gibbs I think would be a good result) 2018 picks in brackets
In: 10 + 16 + (34) + 73
Out: (21) + (39) + 77 + Gibbs
I think when Carlton finish bottom 4 + and the crows finish top 4 (as expected) this trade will be alot more even than most people see it currently.
Verdict : Slightly ahead
In: Lobbe
Out: 95
This is a bargain, but realistically... is he going to play? ahead of Kruezer?
Verdict : Slightly ahead
In: 28 + (28) + 30
Out: 16 + 40
Yes 3 picks inside the top 30 are good,. but let's face it, it's much easier to find top end talent in the 1st than it is in the 2nd
Verdict : EVENS
In: Kennedy
Out: 28
In all games I've seen, he Kennedy has been pretty vanilla and unimpressive, maybe he kicks on this ends up a bargain, but maybe he doesnt.
Verdict : Slightly ahead
In: Darcy Lang + 70
Out: 58 + (55)
An injury prone guy that again has never really impressed me, I'd lay money that he is not at the club when his current contract expires.
Verdict : LOSS
Overall:
In: 10, (28) , 30, (34), 70, 73 + Lobbe, Kennedy and Lang
Out: (21) + (39) + 40, (55), 58, 77, 95, + Gibbs.
I think they had a reasonable trade period, but in reality they ended up with 3 players that aren't exactly safe as houses, lost one of their best players over the past 15 years and shuffled their draft positions around,
Interestingly;
If you go by the AFL.com.au verdict these clubs had better trade periods: (and 2 others had the same score out of 10)
Adelaide, Brisbane, Essendon, Fremantle, Geelong, GC, GWS, Melbourne, Port, Richmond, Sydney, West Coast, Bulldogs
That's 13 clubs with better scores!
and only 3 (Saints, North + Collingwood) had worse!
I disagree with a couple of those,. but to put them as the best overall is just WRONG.
Have you heard of a win-win.I can't believe everyone ranking Carlton's trade period the number 1,. And please don't think i'm just a scorned crows fan because of the Gibbs deal,.
Based on next season's ladder positions being the same (which now that they've lost Gibbs I think would be a good result) 2018 picks in brackets
In: 10 + 16 + (34) + 73
Out: (21) + (39) + 77 + Gibbs
I think when Carlton finish bottom 4 + and the crows finish top 4 (as expected) this trade will be alot more even than most people see it currently.
Verdict : Slightly ahead
In: Lobbe
Out: 95
This is a bargain, but realistically... is he going to play? ahead of Kruezer?
Verdict : Slightly ahead
In: 28 + (28) + 30
Out: 16 + 40
Yes 3 picks inside the top 30 are good,. but let's face it, it's much easier to find top end talent in the 1st than it is in the 2nd
Verdict : EVENS
In: Kennedy
Out: 28
In all games I've seen, he Kennedy has been pretty vanilla and unimpressive, maybe he kicks on this ends up a bargain, but maybe he doesnt.
Verdict : Slightly ahead
In: Darcy Lang + 70
Out: 58 + (55)
An injury prone guy that again has never really impressed me, I'd lay money that he is not at the club when his current contract expires.
Verdict : LOSS
Overall:
In: 10, (28) , 30, (34), 70, 73 + Lobbe, Kennedy and Lang
Out: (21) + (39) + 40, (55), 58, 77, 95, + Gibbs.
I think they had a reasonable trade period, but in reality they ended up with 3 players that aren't exactly safe as houses, lost one of their best players over the past 15 years and shuffled their draft positions around,
Interestingly;
If you go by the AFL.com.au verdict these clubs had better trade periods: (and 2 others had the same score out of 10)
Adelaide, Brisbane, Essendon, Fremantle, Geelong, GC, GWS, Melbourne, Port, Richmond, Sydney, West Coast, Bulldogs
That's 13 clubs with better scores!
and only 3 (Saints, North + Collingwood) had worse!
I disagree with a couple of those,. but to put them as the best overall is just WRONG.
There are some ridiculous examples of statistical analysis.
I don't understand how a club can do nothing and lose, before the draft picks have been chosen, and analysed.
It's just taken for granted that all these trades are going to be wins, but I can assure you folks, they won't.
We're talking North?
North may have found themselves with little to trade. Ziebell or Cunnington would have had value, but you don't want to trade them.
You must be a little disappointed that Goldsteins currency has gone backwards. North may have been keen on trading him, but no interest.
Players Swallow, Hansen & Thomas also had value a couple of years back but now are all but on the outer.
Maybe simply a case of not being prepared to move on the senior players, given the young still need their support.
If a club doesn't trade then it's only applicable rating is N/A (not applicable)
Question: If North had traded Melbourne, geelong or Port, would you deem that we had a good trade period?
Not necessarily as you have to be in motion just to remain where you are.
Standing still can actually be going backwards, but that may not be the case here.
I just feel that North didn't have much to work with.
The young talls haven't shown enough to create value...