Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 2 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[TBOW]

You dismissed every point I made with one unsupported statement and want me to discuss your post?

I apologise if you felt I was too dismissive of you post. I guess it is fair that I adress each point on it's merits.

We dodged a bullet by missing on Wingard.

That is just an opinion - The price was high but the Hawks paid and we were interested. The fact we didn't get him is because we couldn't make it happen not because we didn't want to. MAYBE we thought the price was too steep but this is not a win.

We avoided paying overs to double down in an attempt to take Smith with a lower first round selection. Even better we also avoided looking very foolish by Richmond stealing from under our noses had we tried to take him later than Pick 7 (the had the other pick swaps sorted to take him at 8 or 10).

Again this is conjecture and I think this was a bluff from Adelaide to scare us off but then that is just my conjecture. Avoiding not looking foolish is not a win. Adding a late first rounder and still getting Smith would have been.

We avoided selling our future drafts just to get a second round pick prior to the West bid.

That is also conjecture but I will acknowledge that whatever happened we couldn't get that trade done and it was a sellers market in that range. My issue is that we couldn't capitalise on that sellers market with our own early second round pick. Maybe it fell just outside that desirable range.

The trend was to throw away future second round picks to move up a few spots and for the first time in ages we didn't gift some of our picks to another club in a pick swap.

As above I feel we could have capitalised on this and cashed in ourselves.

We got West for Pick 36, which is equivalent to our past F/S steals in Liberatore and Hunter for a similar pick.

Yes but that is just roughly where west was rated in this draft. The fact that we had this pick and an earlier pick at 30 and couldn't make any use out of 30 is very dissappointing.

We didn't take the Kangaroos/Saints option of making a ridiculous cash offer to a current player only for them to reject us.

Ahem Wingard? To be honest we don't know what we are offering behind the scenes - it is just that North and St.Kilda have chosen to publicise their attempts

Our best player signed up for 2 more years 12 months before his contract was up for renewal.

Happy to get the Bont signed but really celebrating players not leaving is a bit sad.

We added ready-to-go forwards (Lloyd, Cavarra, Hayes) which bolsters our depth in what was clearly our biggest area of need.

Yep filled a need there. Not massively sold on any of them but at least we have competition for the spot.

We no longer have such an abundance of injury-prone players who spend more time in the medical department than on the park.

[/QUOTE]Fingers crossed but we don't really know how any of our draftees will stand up to the rigors of full time football yet.

 

[TiAn_]

Hope you don't mind me balancing out your table Fronk

The way I see it we let Dalhaus go for pick 30 and then turned that pick into a 3rd round pick next year.
However you look at it that is a bad return for Luke and we should have maneuvered that pick better.

We turned it into Vandermeer and a 3rd next year.

 

[TBOW]

I’m going to keep asking this of the people that keep bringing it up until someone actually answers:

Assuming the teams with picks in the mid to late 20s were willing to trade, which is a big assumption, which player from the mid 20s should the club has traded 30 & 35 for?

Would you have traded out next year’s 2nd like the Swans had to if necessary just to ladnd this player?

Who should the club have then taken with another pick at the end of the draft once West took up all our points?

What do we end up with instead of Vandermeer, Cavarra and the 2019 Saints 3rd in this alternate reality?

How is anyone supposed to know who the club would have taken? The fact is we could have taken that pick and probably taken the exact same players we drafted other than Hayes but instead we have a 2019 3rd round pick.

 

[dergert]

May be another clean out next year. We have stocked a heap of 3rd rounders this year for next

 

[Philthy1]

May be another clean out next year. We have stocked a heap of 3rd rounders this year for next

Next year will be the year to go even harder on a big fish. All in on Josh Kelly or Lachie Whitfield. Our list will be primed for success given another season's experience into the list along with the addition of a big player.....assuming we can land one.

 

[TBOW]

We turned it into Vandermeer and a 3rd next year.

Yes technically but if we had of traded it away I still think we could have taken him with our next pcik

 

[TBOW]

May be another clean out next year. We have stocked a heap of 3rd rounders this year for next

Hopefully we can trade them up to someone who needs academy points

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Hopefully we can trade them up to someone who needs academy points

That might just be us.

We should have four potential F/S selections who will be eligible for the 2019 draft:

Joshua Kellett
Oliver Liberatore
Tyler Kolyniuk
Daniel Romero

 

[TiAn_]

How is anyone supposed to know who the club would have taken? The fact is we could have taken that pick and probably taken the exact same players we drafted other than Hayes but instead we have a 2019 3rd round pick.

For a bloke whingeing about the lack of debate you sure lack debate.

This is your rodeo mate, you think the club should have traded 30 and 35 for a pick in the 20s, so which pick/player should it have been?

 

[TiAn_]

Yes technically but if we had of traded it away I still think we could have taken him with our next pcik

It’s not “technically”, it’s just a fact.

We traded 30 so we could take Vandermeer and the Saints 3rd next year.

If we traded 30 and 35 like you wanted our next pick would have been in the 60s or 70s after West wiped out our remaining picks.

So you’re saying Vandermeer would have lasted until the 60s? Or you just don’t actually understand?

 

[TBOW]

For a bloke whingeing about the lack of debate you sure lack debate.

This is your rodeo mate, you think the club should have traded 30 and 35 for a pick in the 20s, so which pick/player should it have been?

I learnt many drafts ago that my 3 minute video analysis was not enough to make a call on the kids available, but if I must -
I would have liked to get up to 24 to get Hill, I think Foley could have been a good fit and if we could have got higher Sturt would have been ideal. However I would have been happy if we traded up and took Curtis Taylor so again it shows I know nothing.
Wizard, GCBC or some of the other guys who watch the draft more closely would be better placed to answer that question.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

I apologise if you felt I was too dismissive of you post. I guess it is fair that I adress each point on it's merits.

Apology accepted.

General comment, you may not have fully grasped what is meant by "the glass half full" appraisal of our off-season.

That is just an opinion - The price was high but the Hawks paid and we were interested. The fact we didn't get him is because we couldn't make it happen not because we didn't want to. MAYBE we thought the price was too steep but this is not a win.

Not overpaying is a win when the club has traditionally overpaid regularly in the past. And there is little doubt that the prices was too steep, given what Hawthorn had to give up for Wingard was overs.

Wingard has some baggage, which you can call conjecture if you want to. Avoiding paying overs for players with those sort of issues is a win in the glass half full view of the off-season.

Again this is conjecture and I think this was a bluff from Adelaide to scare us off but then that is just my conjecture. Avoiding not looking foolish is not a win. Adding a late first rounder and still getting Smith would have been.

Not looking foolish and being the subject of jibes from gutter-dwelling journalists with nothing better to talk about is a win when that has happened regularly in the past (Boyd trade, Stringer trade)

Yes but that is just roughly where west was rated in this draft. The fact that we had this pick and an earlier pick at 30 and couldn't make any use out of 30 is very dissappointing.

None of the phantom drafts I read had West going at Pick 37, which is what we paid. I have no idea which articles you a referring to that suggest West was rated at what we paid.

Ahem Wingard? To be honest we don't know what we are offering behind the scenes - it is just that North and St.Kilda have chosen to publicise their attempts

We offered Port Adelaide and Wingard less than was on the table from Hawthorn. Nobody described our offer as ridiculous, because it wasn't. If it was ridiculous, perhaps we would have been in the mix, perhaps we wouldn't have. See earlier points about bullet dodged.

Happy to get the Bont signed but really celebrating players not leaving is a bit sad.

This is just a miserable comment. I can't help you if you really are miserable to the point that this news is not worth feeling good about.

I'm not actually pleased with every decision made in the off-season, because I'd rather we took another rookie than kept Roarke Smith for a 5th year. But Sam Power has already done better than his predecessor in my view, in spite of being new to the whole caper.

 

[TBOW]

It’s not “technically”, it’s just a fact.

We traded 30 so we could take Vandermeer and the Saints 3rd next year.

If we traded 30 and 35 like you wanted our next pick would have been in the 60s or 70s after West wiped out our remaining picks.

So you’re saying Vandermeer would have lasted until the 60s? Or you just don’t actually understand?

Sure technically/fact same thing.

I know Vandermeer is now a Bulldog (all hail) but if we got say Hill I could have lived with West and say Cavarra or someone else in the 60's. Maybe Vandermeer would have lasted I don't know.

The trade your referring to was me suggesting we traded pick 30 for a 2019 second rounder then use 35 for West, 45 for Vandermeer and whatever else.

 

[TiAn_]

I learnt many drafts ago that my 3 minute video analysis was not enough to make a call on the kids available, but if I must -
I would have liked to get up to 24 to get Hill, I think Foley could have been a good fit and if we could have got higher Sturt would have been ideal. However I would have been happy if we traded up and took Curtis Taylor so again it shows I know nothing.
Wizard, GCBC or some of the other guys who watch the draft more closely would be better placed to answer that question.

GWS gave up 28 and a future 2nd for the draft pick for Hill.

If we traded 30 and our future second, we would have used 35 on West and our next pick would have been a downgraded 46. We wouldn’t have acquired the future 3rd.

Effectively, that ends up being Hill for one of
Vandermeer or Cavarra (assuming one lasted), future 2nd and future 3rd.

Seems steep to me.

 

[TBOW]

Apology accepted.

General comment, you may not have fully grasped what is meant by "the glass half full" appraisal of our off-season.

Haha point made. And yes I am looking at things glass half empty but we need a bit of both around here.

Not overpaying is a win when the club has traditionally overpaid regularly in the past. And there is little doubt that the prices was too steep, given what Hawthorn had to give up for Wingard was overs.

I don't know how you can claim that we have overpaid in the past - I think the landscape has changed with regard to trading in players and this is just market price.

Wingard has some baggage, which you can call conjecture if you want to. Avoiding paying overs for players with those sort of issues is a win in the glass half full view of the off-season.

Not looking foolish and being the subject of jibes from gutter-dwelling journalists with nothing better to talk about is a win when that has happened regularly in the past (Boyd trade, Stringer trade)

I could not give a shit what journalists think - just want to get the best result for the club.

None of the phantom drafts I read had West going at Pick 37, which is what we paid. I have no idea which articles you a referring to that suggest West was rated at what we paid.

Sorry but pick 26 is where West went which is his actual draft value. 34 (which is what we paid) is just our discounted rate. - phantom drafts are irrelevant now.

We offered Port Adelaide and Wingard less than was on the table from Hawthorn. Nobody described our offer as ridiculous, because it wasn't. If it was ridiculous, perhaps we would have been in the mix, perhaps we wouldn't have. See earlier points about bullet dodged.

This is just a miserable comment. I can't help you if you really are miserable to the point that this news is not worth feeling good about.

Always relieved when a good player signs on but keeping players is a bare minimum requirement of list management and not something I'm going to celebrate.

I'm not actually pleased with every decision made in the off-season, because I'd rather we took another rookie than kept Roarke Smith for a 5th year. But Sam Power has already done better than his predecessor in my view, in spite of being new to the whole caper.

I don't think McCartney was a particularly good list manager but I wouldn't say Sam has done better so far. I think he will have lessons to learn from this year and hopefully will go past Jason starting with J Kelly in 2019

 

[TBOW]

GWS gave up 28 and a future 2nd for the draft pick for Hill.

If we traded 30 and our future second, we would have used 35 on West and our next pick would have been a downgraded 46. We wouldn’t have acquired the future 3rd.

Effectively, that ends up being Hill for one of
Vandermeer or Cavarra (assuming one lasted), future 2nd and future 3rd.

Seems steep to me.

Yeah I don't know if we could have got it done but I would argue 30 and 35 is around the same value as what GWS put up.

If we used a future second instead of 35, 46 would have only been downgraded 10 points after the West bid so would not have moved.
To me and again I'm just speculating we could have got Hill, Vandermeer and Cavarra in that situation and only given up the future 2nd.

Like I've said I don't know where the club rates these kids and maybe they just didn't rate the players in that range any higher than a lot of next years batch.

 

[flipper83]

Sorry but half of this is conjecture and the rest is sugar coating.
Fronks analysis is accurate. Today we essentially wasted pick 30 in a strong draft.

Was it really a strong Draft? Top handful were meant to be good but fefe away pretty quickly after that. A lot of mature agers taken would indicate that recruiters didn't think there was that much talent.

 

[Pugz89]

Where's this Saints 3rd rounder come from? It's Hawks and norf's picks we have along with ours I believe.

 

[TiAn_]

Yeah I don't know if we could have got it done but I would argue 30 and 35 is around the same value as what GWS put up.

If we used a future second instead of 35, 46 would have only been downgraded 10 points after the West bid so would not have moved.
To me and again I'm just speculating we could have got Hill, Vandermeer and Cavarra in that situation and only given up the future 2nd.

Like I've said I don't know where the club rates these kids and maybe they just didn't rate the players in that range any higher than a lot of next years batch.

You’re assuming that one of Vandermeer or Cavarra would have lasted until 57 and forgetting that we wouldn’t have added the future 3rd.

So losing a future 2nd and 3rd and possibly missing out on another player we wanted to gain pick 24 (Hill). Still seems steep to me.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Where's this Saints 3rd rounder come from? It's Hawks and norf's picks we have along with ours I believe.

The future pick that we gained from North is actually tied to the Saints apparently. Sentinel looked it up and reported that. The AFL website was unspecific at the time, just said a future 3rd without mentioning who that 3rd was tied to.

 

[Pugz89]

The future pick that we gained from North is actually tied to the Saints apparently. Sentinel looked it up and reported that. The AFL website was unspecific at the time, just said a future 3rd without mentioning who that 3rd was tied to.

AFL usually mentions if it's tied to a team, the fact it's not mentioned means it is just tied to said club, in this case North.

Happy to be proven wrong but that's been the case with other deals.

 

[Sentinel]

The future pick that we gained from North is actually tied to the Saints apparently. Sentinel looked it up and reported that. The AFL website was unspecific at the time, just said a future 3rd without mentioning who that 3rd was tied to.

I'm not totally sure whether we ended up with their own 3rd or the Saints one. I thought we got the Saints one but now can't find how I worked that out. So don't take my word for it!

Edit: mentioned here. Its the Saints pick. http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2018-11-23/norths-draft-recovery

 

[Bont2Bruce]

AFL usually mentions if it's tied to a team, the fact it's not mentioned means it is just tied to said club, in this case North.

Happy to be proven wrong but that's been the case with other deals.

Wasn't the case with the Adams deal, which was (eventually) reported fully to be tied to Hawthorn. The initial report was just like the one today about the North trade, totally unspecific (and unhelpful).

EDIT: Confusion reigns! Here is some more detail on the subject at hand, which says it is tied to North Melbourne:

 

[Prince Imperial]

North's website confirms it's the Saints' third rounder:

http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2018-11-23/norths-draft-recovery

Using live trading the list management and recruiting team sent pick 51 to St Kilda for a third-round selection, then on-traded that to the Bulldogs in return for pick 46.

 

[Sentinel]

Wasn't the case with the Adams deal, which was (eventually) reported fully to be tied to Hawthorn. The initial report was just like the one today about the North trade, totally unspecific (and unhelpful).

EDIT: Confusion reigns! Here is some more detail on the subject at hand, which says it is tied to North Melbourne:

See my edit above. North website confirms its the Saints pick. The AFL are horrible at reporting this stuff accurately.