Ads wanted to be like Buckley...so why not emulate his Premiership success as well...
Oh...
List Mgmt. Trade Hypotheticals (opposition posters post here)
- Thread starter dlanod
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Ads wanted to be like Buckley...so why not emulate his Premiership success as well...
Oh...
- Nov 23, 2015
- 11,809
- 17,457
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Moderator
- #127
Turbocat, I would think so. I crunched some points in one of these threads based on possible finishing positions (GWS, Geelong, Collingwood & Adelaide) and draft selections of the academy kids ... with the current 2016 picks we appear easily able to draft 4 kids and likely a fifth (IMO, we should only be seeking 3 or 4 at most, depending on whether we unexpectedly lose additional guys from the current squad). Therefore, we would not need (nor indeed probably want) more 2016 picks. So, I fully expect GWS to look at future picks, combination 2016 & future picks, high future picks with handback of 2016 R1/R2 pick as options. It does work in our favour with the flexibility it allows. You're right in that teams will be reluctant to part with 2017 picks (especially R1) given the rumours of draft strength, but some clubs are likely to back themselves to 'beat' the forecast (as Geelong did with Henderson trade IMO).
I would think that's possible. Effectively it's the same points (GWS gains a handful) presuming same finishing positions next year as this, so GWS bet on Geelong getting worse & therefore a few extra points next year. But - more importantly - a couple of deals like that pushes some of our 2016 picks into 2017. I would think GWS would like to get a straight R1 2016 for R1 2017 swap also - more certainty against AFL House changing rules, but I can understand why any club would not want to remove themselves from the 2017 draft. However, if GWS hold that out as the only deal ...
Given how last year's trades went down (i.e. the unexpected ramifications of academy bidding process & future picks) and the fact that GWS has a new list management team this year, hard to predict exactly what might occur.
Last edited:
Then again, we could get caught - stockpiling points for next year - and they go and change the rules yet again leaving us with a whole heap of mid range picks that would have added up to a lot, but can't be used to pick up academy kids.
Eddie will have his way, come hell or high water, and we could be left high and dry.
Eddie will have his way, come hell or high water, and we could be left high and dry.
- Nov 23, 2015
- 11,809
- 17,457
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Moderator
- #129
Agree that's a risk, hence why I think that GWS would try for the safety of first round picks where they can. But can't always get everything you want, and second round are still valuable enough. Wouldn't think we'd take future third or fourth round though.
And that's why AFL need to make decisions 12-18 months in advance, so it doesn't impact on future planning. But they just tend to react to whoever shouts loudest and longest.
Thats a well thought thru observation I feel.. I don't wont to open the academy debate in this thread.. but I feel your observations show that there is far more to player retention than just having access to local talent.
I feel I can comment on what you have described as a Geelong supporter , perhaps better than some of the bigger Vic clubs supporters. It was not so long ago that Geelong was a club that struggled to get players to come, that we had questionable culture , that our facilities were run down , coaches were average , admin poor and we were in debt. On field at our best we were nice side but not a serious big game participant , we have had some truly great players but were almost expected to fail on the biggest day . As a consequence , we were were not seen as a legit 1st choice when players moved.
Generally young guys who came in young and settled were happy enough . Thos in some part was thru selecting the right kid. We did pick some local if the talent was seemed as about the same..Bartel, Ling etc. Some time in the past , we were perhaps seen as a bit too comfortable, a bit too accepting of mediocrity and some always eyeing other clubs in the big smoke. Our location being an hour from Melb was probably attractive to 1 out 4 or 5 that we would try to recruit.. to a lot of the real big clubs like Carlton and Richmond etc. Geelong were there to make up the numbers... yet now a lot of that has swung thru what you have described. Swung thru similar things that you have described.. assemble a solid to excellent group of player across a few drafts , A grade inputs , yes some special picks like Father Son were a bonus but plenty of late picks have become Geelong legends ....it was all of what you have described that delivered the Geelong of today.
You are right that tough times can bind players , feeling key to club, a strong part of it does affect retention. As your side matures you will lose some players , as every club does. You have a group of players on the verge of potential greatness , those in the side should feel confident about their future and in addition there will be the Hopper types that get added (just like we added a Selwood in 07 for instance) ...
It means that there will be spillage. The odd player from your best side will also move..as with most clubs.... and that spillage from that may even mean locals go elsewhere. Does that mean Steele this year? Marchbank? Even players like Ahern or Pickett... perhaps. They may decide that there are better options are elsewhere. I don't see that as GWS issue. A location issue. Guys like SJ coming tells the generally footy community that there is absolutely nothing wrong with you as a destination or place to reside.
Sorry to stray off subject...
Last edited:
Back themselves yes... but the criteria of 2 R1 picks in 4 years puts pressure on clubs not to trade. Although I understand the rational..that the AFL fear clubs being reckless, selling their future etc.. but its a very "simplistic" mechanism... it pays no heed to P18 V P19 for example, it just simply says R1. I think one could make a good argument , that trading a late R1 lets say P18 for 2 in the 20's like p23 and p25 is far more likely to be prudent than reckless..yet that 2 in 4 sort of restricts that. That reason alone , Id like to get an R1 this year..without trading our R1 next. Take that requirement away and it would be easier to agree to trading R1's. Geelong have multiple times in the past done 18 into 23 ,25 type deal but this rule sort of kills that , yet in a deep draft (2017) my bet Geelong would love to do that type of thing. To protect some clubs , it prevents some clubs being proactive.
On the rule changes.. Im must be missing something. GWS,GCS,BL,SS trade to get picks for locals. Tick. Other clubs get access to earlier talent. Tick. Both parties agree to a trade, obviously see advantages for themselves. Tick. Is the issue the other clubs who miss out? Yes put a criteria of at least one R1 must be retained..but apart from that why put a brake on it? Trading is good. Id consider a mid year trade period , trade future picks but in this years draft, players looking for chances , players on the verge of FA , clubs needing help due to unforeseen injuries etc....but certainly not try to prevent trades happening.
On the deal.. You have seen it the way I have , GWS would have all upside dealing with Geelong if they are seen as a top side this year. Perhaps a Freo situation occurs..at worst we stay where we are. I hope Geelong are already having a quiet word to GWS , Oct will come along quick enough.
- Nov 23, 2015
- 11,809
- 17,457
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Moderator
- #132
Much I agree with here, Turbocat.
The late R1 vs early R2 argument is very true. I guess the point I'd make with trading 2017 R1 for Geelong's 2016 R1 is that it gives Geelong a bit more flexibility in the future. You traded 2015 R1, if you don't get a 2016 R1 then you've no room for trades in 2017 & 2018. Trading 2017 R1 for 2016 R1 at least gives you room to manoeuvre in 2017 or 2018. But, yes, Geelong's preference would surely be to regain 2016 R1 by trading other rounds.
The rule change issue ... that's just all of us northern states fans' fear that AFL House will listen to Eddie and change the rules by which the academies have been set up and run. The problem is that the AFL is so knee-jerk, that they're likely to make such changes very late in the day, after we've made decisions and trades - so we don't trust them. I think the trades that occurred last year were, on the whole, good. It's not far different from a club that gambles on trading pick #11 for picks #21 & #22 - that they can pick up 2 players that fit their needs without losing too much from what they gave up. Last year's draft composition was such that it was perfect for the trades that happened - don't know that it will be the same in 2016 & 2017.
I know Eddie is a sore point..but I think you misinterpret if you feel it is him alone. He is a mouth , comes down to his dna but there would be plenty saying the same etc behind the scenes.. listen to something like Road to the draft.the different recruitment mangers and these equalisation issues are there in the background. Again dna...every RM worth his salt wants advantages to at least be equal of favour them. I have stated my opinion on so I will not tread that ground again.
On a different train of thought.
Just how many of your GWS guys are OOC? You have to gradually come down to 38 . You have to gradually come down to equal SC. How do you see that affecting how many Academy kids coming in? As the SC kick ins, the quality of your side increases and the quality of kids from the Academy keep getting better... do you feel that will inhibit your trades in the near future. Any kid not really a very high talent is almost tough for you to take.
Would you prefer that Swans had access to the surplus or perhaps the QLD clubs or should they go into the general pool? Im sure most of the kids would sort of be disappointed if they don't get picked.
On players
You have Flynn from last year.. do you envisage trading Downie. Lobb seems to be locked in... has Downie now slipped to 4th ruck? Downie almost a give away pick?
- Nov 23, 2015
- 11,809
- 17,457
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Moderator
- #134
Yes, don't misunderstand me or any GWS fan here - we understand it's more than just Eddie, but he's the main mouthpiece given his media presence, and he's the one with the weight to get AFL House to change rules midstream. We all have heard Watson, Twomey, Anderson, BT - but it's not a rational debate because they all tell lies rather than discuss the facts. And yes, AFL has always been: rule change - one club takes advantage - other clubs complain - knee-jerk rule change and so on, so nothing is unexpected.
I've posted previously about our list size, so not to repeat, but effectively over 2016 to 2018 we need to drop from 42 to 38 main list, which would be 13 players leave the current list if 3 players are drafted each year. There's probably 7 or 8 retirements (or age-related departures) in that time, so 5 to 6 of the (younger) current list need to depart. They would be expected to come from the fringe 22s (Tomlinson, maybe WHE & Stewart) or those not really getting a look in (McKenna, Barrett) and any departures for homesickness or more money (Marchbank possible from what we're hearing). If we lose more than that, we'll need to top up more from the academy or normal draft. Hence my view that we should only be taking the minimum 3 or at most 4 this year, as we're getting chock-full of talent that isn't all getting a run. I suspect that GWS list management are going to have to make some harsh decisions soon, on those who aren't performing at a level required. But need to be careful, as you point out with salary cap, can't just keep the good kids because they cost too much, have to hold some lower-end, lower-pay guys. How that balance goes in the list depends on how willing guys are to take unders to stay at a club that looks on the up.
I'm happy for any club to take our kids, so not just Sydney or the other northern states. I'd actually like us to pass on one of Setterfield, Mutch or Perryman, because I don't think we honestly can use them all - OK we could trade them 2 years down the track, but we need to be careful about having the brand stand for something worthwhile. I hope a lot of the kids get picked up. Look at the U18 Div 2 championships at the moment, a bunch of kids not previously mentioned have suddenly been seen as good: Marshall, Perryman, Lynch primarily, but also Maguire & Bance prominent today.
Our rucks. I see the perfect setup for us at the moment is Mummy as main ruck plus Lobb forward as a goal-kicking relief. I see Dawson Simpson purely as a stop-gap big-bodied ruckman in case Mummy goes down, but Downie is the man to take over from Mummy. He's developing well, just that old adage of ruckman not hitting their prime until after 25. Flynn is the long-term replacement. I'd be very disappointed if we either traded or allowed Downie to be traded. It means we haven't convinced him that he has a great future at GWS. Certainly not a give-away pick. It will be interesting to see what we do this year at draft - Max Lynch has been tearing it up recently, but not sure we have the space to really take him as a ruckman. If he lasted until the rookie list I could possibly see us take him as a long-term project (perhaps he and Flynn could be the future Mummy-Lobb combo), but it still is probably two solid rucks too close together.
Ahh the perennial question of rucks.
Downie kicked a couple in the NEAFL this afternoon. Played well around the ground - but then so did both Flynn and Simpson. Simpson is on a one year deal, he's only still young (for a ruckman) Flynn is obviously long term.
I wouldn't say Downie has slipped to fourth - more like
Mummy
Daylight
Lobb
Simpson/Downie/Flynn - throw a blanket over them.
That says a lot about Flynn's progress from last year to this. Last year he was pure sushi but his development has been extremely good. Was very impressed with his game today.
I think it depends on what we do with Simpson as to what happens to Downie
I wouldn't like to call it either way at the moment.
How far away is Kennedy? I think you can stand by for more Academy discussion after this debut from Hopper !!
Surely this must dappen a few hope of guys on the edge. Kids like Hopper come in and soon lock a spot.
I see Barrett and Reid are Emg.s today , whats the story with Reid 26 yo and hasn't debuted?
Surely this must dappen a few hope of guys on the edge. Kids like Hopper come in and soon lock a spot.
I see Barrett and Reid are Emg.s today , whats the story with Reid 26 yo and hasn't debuted?
Saw Kennedy for the first time this afternoon. Got it heaps, but I'd hate to see his disposal efficiency by foot. Pretty sloppy. I'd say a fair way off with the team and the way it's travelling.
Reid debuted several years ago for the dogs,before playing for us in 2012/13 before retiring and becoming NEAFL captain and development coach. Was re-rookied at the start of the year and only elevated a couple of weeks ago with Pickett's injury. Give him a chance.
Just seems a strange pick considering your list.. but who knows..maybe he gets in and plays well for a couple of years...
isamedthegiants
Club Legend
- May 3, 2016
- 1,528
- 1,720
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Banned
- #139
He has played for us IIRC, very early doors in 2012.
Basically earned his spot back last year with his NEAFL form. Was a bit plagued with injuries early which is why he retired (was going to be delisted). But 50 odd goals and an excellent season last year and he won a rookie contract - and excellent form won him promotion. Named as an emergency a couple of times. When he gets to play again it will be one of those good news stories of perseverance. Also - great clubman. And that gets rewarded too. We're not just a plastic franchise.
- Apr 19, 2015
- 16,620
- 14,168
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Manchester United, Juventus,
Do you guys have any fear of players being squeezed out or can you keep most of them?
Some of us could only dream of having guys like Tomlinson running around in the twos
Some of us could only dream of having guys like Tomlinson running around in the twos
isamedthegiants
Club Legend
- May 3, 2016
- 1,528
- 1,720
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Banned
- #142
You can have him.
40 disposals yesterday and scored 0.3
His kicking is atrocious. If we get a first rounder for him, we'd have made off like bandits.
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,168
- 41,967
- AFL Club
- GWS
Trade more with us then
- Apr 19, 2015
- 16,620
- 14,168
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Manchester United, Juventus,
We have nothing you would want.
Would think he will finish bottom and so have picks 1/19/37 etc and I don't think we would give up number 1 for him. I'm presuming you guys need a heap of points for the academy bids but 19 & 37 wouldn't cut it either. Maybe some future picks or the like?
- Apr 19, 2015
- 16,620
- 14,168
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Manchester United, Juventus,
How high of a first rounder?
Top 10 I'm presuming
isamedthegiants
Club Legend
- May 3, 2016
- 1,528
- 1,720
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Banned
- #146
I'd take any first rounder for him.
I really don't rate him. His attributes are rare; size and tank.
But his poor disposal, his shocking set shot, his poor decision making...
He's an aerobically gifted spud.
- Apr 19, 2015
- 16,620
- 14,168
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Manchester United, Juventus,
Pick 19 & 37 get it done?
isamedthegiants
Club Legend
- May 3, 2016
- 1,528
- 1,720
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Banned
- #148
I'd take your second rounder next year.
To offer 19 & 37, we come out that far in front it's not funny.
So yes, 19 & 37 would most certainly get it done.
- Apr 19, 2015
- 16,620
- 14,168
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Manchester United, Juventus,
Got any steak knives you want to throw in aswell then?
Is it next year you have to trim your list or has that taken effect?
isamedthegiants
Club Legend
- May 3, 2016
- 1,528
- 1,720
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Banned
- #150
We've got a bit of trimming left to do.
But it's more pr0n-Star 3 weeks after a Brazilian trimming than 45 year old Lebanese lady bikini-line trimming, if you get my drift.
Similar threads
- Sticky
