Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 5 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[_Cerberus_]

Playing devil's advocate, I must say that it makes me slightly uneasy to hear us almost exclusively linked to players in positions of immediate need in the opening rounds. We are traditionally a 'best available' club which has served us well over recent years. I know Power is on record as saying that was our approach here too, but the media coverage does make me wonder somewhat. I hope it isn't a shift away from that strategy.

I don't read it like that myself. So I am not overly worried.

Tsatas was ranked a top 5 player by many. Had of we traded up to Pick 4, he would have been picked accordingly and been best available at that pick. Just fitting that he would have also filled a need as well.

I think with our picks, it may seem like we ditched the best available approach, and gone just for needs. But I think it was more along the lines of....

"Oh, we have this gun midfielder and Busslinger available for us at pick 12, both are rated at a very similar position on the draft board, both could provide a similar level of impact. Since defender is a need, we will go with Busslinger"

Same for Clarke. Both Busslinger and Clarke are easily debatable to been in the best available player at their respective picks debate. There was no clear cut better player than them, so in that scenario needs can be a tiebreaker.

We rated Busslinger best available on our draft board, ahead of anyone else. That is why we turned down the chance for a better draft hand from Melbourne for only dropping back two spots, because we were worried the Eagles might pounce with the pick before hand.

If Phillipou had of slipped, I reckon we would have picked him over Busslinger.

 

[Bulldogs85]

I don't read it like that myself. So I am not overly worried.

Tsatas was ranked a top 5 player by many. Had of we traded up to Pick 4, he would have been picked accordingly and been best available at that pick. Just fitting that he would have also filled a need as well.

I think with our picks, it may seem like we ditched the best available approach, and gone just for needs. But I think it was more along the lines of....

"Oh, we have this gun midfielder and Busslinger available for us at pick 12, both are rated at a very similar position on the draft board, both could provide a similar level of impact. Since defender is a need, we will go with Busslinger"

Same for Clarke. Both Busslinger and Clarke are easily debatable to been in the best available player at their respective picks debate. There was no clear cut better player than them, so in that scenario needs can be a tiebreaker.

We rated Busslinger best available on our draft board, ahead of anyone else. That is why we turned down the chance for a better draft hand from Melbourne for only dropping back two spots, because we were worried the Eagles might pounce with the pick before hand.

If Phillipou had of slipped, I reckon we would have picked him over Busslinger.

Don’t think Essendon had any interest in trading pick 4 to begin with. Melbourne offered their pick 13 and 2 future first rounders for it

 

[_Cerberus_]

Don’t think Essendon had any interest in trading pick 4 to begin with. Melbourne offered their pick 13 and 2 future first rounders for it

Yeah there were definitely not budging, they were never gonna trade it out regardless the rumors.. My post was just saying IF the trade occurred. Whether Tsatas would have been a best available or needs based option.

 

[TiAn_]

Seems like even if we got 15 from the Bears we may have still taken Clarke with that pick. Draft seems to have gone pretty well for us.

 

[CaptainMurphy]

Playing devil's advocate, I must say that it makes me slightly uneasy to hear us almost exclusively linked to players in positions of immediate need in the opening rounds. We are traditionally a 'best available' club which has served us well over recent years. I know Power is on record as saying that was our approach here too, but the media coverage does make me wonder somewhat. I hope it isn't a shift away from that strategy.

My feeling is that is changes with the strength of the draft. In a weaker draft like this one apparently was, it might make more sense to go for needs earlier than you usually would. The problem with doing so in a stronger draft is you miss out on a superstar to get a good role player, if there aren't many superstars past the first couple then maybe just take the good role players that play in roles you need.

 

[Testekill]

Seems like even if we got 15 from the Bears we may have still taken Clarke with that pick. Draft seems to have gone pretty well for us.

Yeah, Clarke was always in that 15-25 range so it wouldn't have even been a reach to take him there.

 

[bobs head soup]

Playing devil's advocate, I must say that it makes me slightly uneasy to hear us almost exclusively linked to players in positions of immediate need in the opening rounds. We are traditionally a 'best available' club which has served us well over recent years. I know Power is on record as saying that was our approach here too, but the media coverage does make me wonder somewhat. I hope it isn't a shift away from that strategy.

The article states we approached Essendon about trading 2 1sts for an inside mid in Tsatsas and we also bid for another mid in Fletcher, knowing there was at least a small chance we could end up with him, so I'm not sure we were that position focussed

 

[flipper83]

Don’t think Essendon had any interest in trading pick 4 to begin with. Melbourne offered their pick 13 and 2 future first rounders for it

The same article says Melbourne only offered the 2 future picks and had no intention of offering 3 firsts.
Really 2 firsts for pick 4 is pretty underwhelming. I think Essendon was mainly trying to bluff gold coast into a swap to ensure they got Humphrey.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

The article states we approached Essendon about trading 2 1sts for an inside mid in Tsatsas and we also bid for another mid in Fletcher, knowing there was at least a small chance we could end up with him, so I'm not sure we were that position focussed

Tsatas and Fletcher are both outside-leaning mids though, right? I feel like most of the players mentioned are those types with the exception of the KPD.

Anyway, I take the points of everyone. There isn't enough to say definitively one way or the other. Just a little uneasy, but like the look of the players we selected.

 

[weltschmerz]

I’m not sure there was a more highly rated player available than Busslinger. Was talked about as top 5 before his shoulder reco.

 

[Mofra]

Tsatas and Fletcher are both outside-leaning mids though, right? I feel like most of the players mentioned are those types with the exception of the KPD.

Anyway, I take the points of everyone. There isn't enough to say definitively one way or the other. Just a little uneasy, but like the look of the players we selected.

Tsatas plays in the centre, Fletcher a wing. We were also linked to Hollands and Allen (both wings) but our second and third selections weren't wings.

 

[VitalDread]

I'm glad we stuch to our guns with Buss
Next year draft is stacked with Mids

 

[Doggy]

I'm glad we stuch to our guns with Buss
Next year draft is stacked with Mids

It's the right call

 

[House_of_Dahl]

I'm glad we stuch to our guns with Buss
Next year draft is stacked with Mids

Pretty exciting times really

• already strong list that should be a chance.
• great draft where two early picks also equalled needs (KPD and genuine small forward).
• traded in two needs that are near top of their positions (KPD and 2nd Ruck/Fwd).
• Really strong draft hand next year still to come (two firsts, a second, and three fourths) in an allegedly mega draft.

 

[weltschmerz]

Pretty exciting times really

• already strong list that should be a chance.
• great draft where two early picks also equalled needs (KPD and genuine small forward).
• traded in two needs that are near top of their positions (KPD and 2nd Ruck/Fwd).
• Really strong draft hand next year still to come (two firsts, a second, and three fourths) in an allegedly mega draft.

I've already got my eye on a couple of draft kids.

 

[_Cerberus_]

I've already got my eye on a couple of draft kids.

Which two catches your eye?

 

[weltschmerz]

Which two catches your eye?

Sam Frangalas - midfield bull, already got good size, looks like a 30-year-old tradie masquerading as a 17-year-old draft kid

Will Lorenz - classy midfield ball user with a great kick

 

[Mofra]

Sam Frangalas - midfield bull, already got good size, looks like a 30-year-old tradie masquerading as a 17-year-old draft kid

Will Lorenz - classy midfield ball user with a great kick

Liked just for the likely nickname of 'Franga'

 

[bobs head soup]

Liked just for the likely nickname of 'Franga'

His Dad (I'm presuming- looks identical), Gary Frangalas, played for the Swans in the 80s and was universally referred to as franga.

 

[weltschmerz]

His Dad (I'm presuming- looks identical), Gary Frangalas, played for the Swans in the 80s and was universally referred to as franga.

Yep, but not enough games for Sam to be F/S.

 

[Mofra]

Yep, but not enough games for Sam to be F/S.

Franga/Son?

 

[TedDougChris]

Franga/Son?

Hasn't worn it properly if that's the case....

 

[BLACAE]

I know this has probably been answered but is Young Croft up this year or next? I thought he was this year and Cooney's boy and the West twins were the following years.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Mofra]

I know this has probably been answered but is Young Croft up this year or next? I thought he was this year and Cooney's boy and the West twins were the following years.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Jordan Croft is 2023, as would his brother be if he didn't choose volleyball

 

[geoffjennings79]

I know this has probably been answered but is Young Croft up this year or next? I thought he was this year and Cooney's boy and the West twins were the following years.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

I know it's not your intent, but given the 'variety' of first names these days, I won't be surprised when a draftee with the given first name 'Young' actually turns up.
As long as it's not the offspring of Lewis, Angus or George Young!
And Young Young sounds more like a name for the latest exotic arrival at Melbourne Zoo!