Analysis The Case for a Priority Pick

[jackess]

You are welcome to that opinion. By the way, nice contribution to the debate - generally, if you want to debate someone, try explaining what you think rather than just shouting "YOU'RE WRONG!".

As it is, I still think pick 12 was way too high for Cameron. As I've stated, I think Barrett's stats were more compelling for a similar role (at least initially), though realistically, I agree that Cameron is better... But not by enough to give up pick 12. I think that with a few more games,
Barrett may gain some composure which might improve his kicking. Cameron already had 49 games before this season, and his kicking is just as bad (worse by raw statistics, but within the same range).

I also think that when one combines the Schache and pickswap trades, which realistically is the more reasonable way to read it, we traded Schache+20 for 15 and a bit of change for academy points (picks 40+52). I think that is a ludicrous trade that shows that Schache was never coming back, that the posturing was all ridiculous, and that no rival club managers ever remotely bought it. Noble was clearly outmaneuvered.

Now, if you care to disagree with these points, please feel free to explain what you disagree with and why. That is how this works.

So do you think we should have stuck firm on 20 for Cameron and not have traded Schache?

 

[spotthedog1]

So do you think we should have stuck firm on 20 for Cameron and not have traded Schache?

I think about 20 was fair. If we'd gone to 18 to get the deal done, I'd have shrugged and said oh well. At 12, I think it was time to walk away. We don't need him specifically for 2018, and there'd be a 90% likelihood that he'd request a trade to us again next year, when he was out of contract. This isn't an Gibbs to the Crows situation - Gibbs helps them shoot for a cup this year so the timing of a deal was important. Cameron will be useful onfield for us in 2018, but he's not exactly going to be the difference. I don't think it was imperative to overpay that much to get him this year.

And Schache, we ended up with Schache+20 = 15+40+52. In terms of draft points, the total 2 deals was Schache for 875 points - about pick 21). Yes, I think we got screwed. I get the devaluation aspect, but at a pick upgrade from 20 to 15 for a key forward on the back of one bad year and homesickness, I'd have preferred to keep him for a year to see if he either starts to adjust to life up here, or put in a semi-decent year and see if he gets any suitors. Hell, have him spend every second week in Victoria and just come back for games and every second week of training. Worst case scenario, his value drops a little more. Not much more to lose though.

For comparison, on the draft points system, we lost 65% of Schache's drafted value in 2 years. Polec was only 10%, Aish we didn't even lose that. The worst of the Go Home 5 was Docherty, where we lost just over 50% of his drafted value. In terms of draft value versus traded value, Schache lost us more than any single player in the Go Home 5 or Aish, that is on both points and percentage.

Yes, I'd have not made either trade.

 

[jackess]

I think about 20 was fair. If we'd gone to 18 to get the deal done, I'd have shrugged and said oh well. At 12, I think it was time to walk away. We don't need him specifically for 2018, and there'd be a 90% likelihood that he'd request a trade to us again next year, when he was out of contract. This isn't an Gibbs to the Crows situation - Gibbs helps them shoot for a cup this year so the timing of a deal was important. Cameron will be useful onfield for us in 2018, but he's not exactly going to be the difference. I don't think it was imperative to overpay that much to get him this year.

And Schache, we ended up with Schache+20 = 15+40+52. In terms of draft points, the total 2 deals was Schache for 875 points - about pick 21). Yes, I think we got screwed. I get the devaluation aspect, but at a pick upgrade from 20 to 15 for a key forward on the back of one bad year and homesickness, I'd have preferred to keep him for a year to see if he either starts to adjust to life up here, or put in a semi-decent year and see if he gets any suitors. Hell, have him spend every second week in Victoria and just come back for games and every second week of training. Worst case scenario, his value drops a little more. Not much more to lose though.

For comparison, on the draft points system, we lost 65% of Schache's drafted value in 2 years. Polec was only 10%, Aish we didn't even lose that. The worst of the Go Home 5 was Docherty, where we lost just over 50% of his drafted value. In terms of draft value versus traded value, Schache lost us more than any single player in the Go Home 5 or Aish, that is on both points and percentage.

Yes, I'd have not made either trade.

I'd call it 2 pick upgrades if Ballenden is bid on where we expect him to because the later picks may stop our second rounder being pushed back from early 20s to late 20s.

I agree on Cameron but with Schache you just have to trust that there's a lot more to his situation then we knew. A lot on this board were talking 2 first rounders, more rational posters were saying one and his value ended up being 21 as you said. We have to just put that down to poor recruitment and move on I think.

 

[spotthedog1]

I'd call it 2 pick upgrades if Ballenden is bid on where we expect him to because the later picks may stop our second rounder being pushed back from early 20s to late 20s.

I agree on Cameron but with Schache you just have to trust that there's a lot more to his situation then we knew. A lot on this board were talking 2 first rounders, more rational posters were saying one and his value ended up being 21 as you said. We have to just put that down to poor recruitment and move on I think.

I can see what you mean... I'd imagine that the club would have a rough idea where the bid would fall, and ensuring your picks are before that was smart. We took a hit in terms of points, but realistically, it was still good for us for academy purposes, and then got us back up to 15. I get that, particularly this year, you have to pay a premium to move up the order, and even though the Tiges were getting just as much out of the trade as us, the trade was reasonable enough.

I'm gathering that with Schache, there's a potential there for mental health issues, etc. And they may have been exceptional circumstances that we aren't aware of (and I'm perfectly comfortable with the club not sharing such info), but unless absolutely everything that Noble said during the trade period was complete lies, I think we just bent over and took it. The idea that we took less for Schache than we gave up for Cameron though is just mindboggling. Both homesick players, and we took the short end on both.

Quite happy with the Hodgy trade though. Short term solution, for sure, but potential lasting benefit for a guy like Harris. I wouldn't be surprised to see the club basically tell someone like Berry to follow him around. Not for the backline organisation, but for the leadership training.

 

[Haso]

You are welcome to that opinion. By the way, nice contribution to the debate - generally, if you want to debate someone, try explaining what you think rather than just shouting "YOU'RE WRONG!".

As it is, I still think pick 12 was way too high for Cameron. As I've stated, I think Barrett's stats were more compelling for a similar role (at least initially), though realistically, I agree that Cameron is better... But not by enough to give up pick 12. I think that with a few more games,
Barrett may gain some composure which might improve his kicking. Cameron already had 49 games before this season, and his kicking is just as bad (worse by raw statistics, but within the same range).

I also think that when one combines the Schache and pickswap trades, which realistically is the more reasonable way to read it, we traded Schache+20 for 15 and a bit of change for academy points (picks 40+52). I think that is a ludicrous trade that shows that Schache was never coming back, that the posturing was all ridiculous, and that no rival club managers ever remotely bought it. Noble was clearly outmaneuvered.

Now, if you care to disagree with these points, please feel free to explain what you disagree with and why. That is how this works.

Good grief man. I half expect you to ask me if I support the current incumbent board members.

 

[spotthedog1]

Good grief man. I half expect you to ask me if I support the current incumbent board members.

Well, in light of that well-reasoned argument, I'll change my opinion then!

 

[luthor]

Well, in light of that well-reasoned argument, I'll change my opinion then!

and about time too

You've done nothing but whinge and moan since the trade period ended

 

[Fatcat08]

Well I think this thread has well and truly lost its original purpose. Until next year....... Hopefully not