List Mgmt. Trade Week 2016 - Live Thread

[bombard]

Those who have a say in the decision will have access to vision of the game.

You mean SpaceClef has no influence on our list management? OUTRAGED

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I'd argue we've had a few fair infiltrate here lately.

Yeah but this place is moderated much more effectively.

Probably.

 

[Biggie]

Yeah but this place is moderated much more effectively.

Probably.

No argument here.

Also no envy either.

 

[Keys]

Simpson is well aware of the capabilities of the group. The natural improvement of the kids, a better season out of the 2 recruits from last year and the addition of Mitchell should see WC around the mark again as the midfield will be much stronger.
Despite all the trading possibilities fans see, the reality is often different.
A clubs best chance is development of youth & WC have preserved their draft this year.

I'm happy with our trades - especially that we didn't chase players with our early draft picks and kept those picks instead. It would have been nice to improve those picks but as you've alluded to in other posts we didn't really have much available to achieve such a trade.

Can I ask if you are aware of how close, if at all, we came to trading for Ballantyne? My suspicion is that we barely considered it and the whole thing was just media noise

 

[avishka5]

Given the debacle of the 2015 GF and the heartless crap in the 2016 EF I think everyone is acutely aware where we sit at the present moment especially in relation to the better teams. I back us to improve and finish top 4 next year then anything is possible after that. If we fail again then expect Simmo to be put under the spot light. I still think he is the man to take us to the next flag. Call me optimistic

I try to be optimistic but I am vary due past experiences.

 

[squashface]

Trading our existing picks and future picks for more pick. Trading players who don't fit the category of 'development of youth' that you mentioned as being most likely to bring improvement to the team.

I'm not going to spend time thinking up hypothetical trades because that's the job of the recruiting team who are in the thick of it and are aware of what's possible. But lots of other clubs seemed to trade picks in return for either a higher pick or more lower picks, so clearly it's not impossible, and doesn't require special currency.

I'm not displeased with our trade period but I don't think we did as much as we could have to maximise the development opportunities in the draft. I think that rather than looking to the draft we are looking to our existing players and the impact that Mitchell will have on them. Which is fine. But not as exciting for us fans.

this x 1000

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

I see three main parts to the list management equation:- trading, delisting and drafting. We are now two thirds through it and will need to wait until the draft to finalise the outlook and determine the success. I believe we dodged a couple of bullets with people wanting to come to us and not really filling a need.

Recap
2016 list we had 35 seniors, 5 rookies and 2 category B rookies
(note - assume Lamb and Butler contracted and gone Brown to Victoria)


Senior List:
Start of year 35 spots, now 32 with 5 off and 2 on as at 20 Oct
Ability to go to the draft and use 4 picks

Screaming anomaly is McInnes. His inability to step up meant we had to get Vardy to cover tall shortage in 2017. Reality is he should be demoted to rookie list (even though we have to pay his full 2017 salary) with a promise to pick up in rookie provided no other club rookies him. In that event, we would have to top up his salary to the amount we contracted. Is this a risk – unfortunately no. Doing this would enable us to go for a 5th pick in the main draft and assume we get a slightly better pick that pick 12 in the rookie draft.

Trading:
Mitchell for a steal and if that was all we did then most people deem a success.
Vardy is a good pick up – high upside and a cheap insurance policy. Giles has shown durability and I believe we could take the risk.

Rookies:
Start or year 5, now 2
Currently Snadden and Tunbridge so ability to get another 2 in the rookie draft unless sense is made demoting McInnes

Cat B Rookies:
Start or year 2, now 1
Only our Irishman with a possibility of Bayok being a multicultural rookie


The draft
2016 Picks: 12, 34, 54, 106 and 124.
Father son prospect in Waterman
2017 Picks: in tact

Good news in that we have not sacrificed anything from our 2017 draft as it is meant to be another string year. In 20126, we have maintained our 1st round pick and slight downgrade of 2 places for our 2nd and 3rd rounders. Lost our 4th and 5th round picks.

I would love to have seen another pick gained in the 20’s this year . Pity but not bad.

For those who are saying we are going for this person or that, wake up as unless you have insider knowledge, you han no freaking idea and are speculating.

The strength of the draft this year is in mid sized players who are expected to be potential midfielders and midfielders.

Pick 12 – go the best midfield option regardless of state they come from but dodge injured players please. Given the number of selections GWS and GC have in top 10, there are likely to be games with academy boys and we may get the 15th best player at pick 12. This is likely to be either a slider (Scrimshaw, etc) or one of Berry, Logue (if you think big bodied mid), Venables or Florent. Perhaps Shai Bolton or SPP if you think another good mid at our pick 2

Pick 34 – There will be moves up and down this 20 to 35 mark so expect recruiters to really earn their pay in the second round. Possible that SPP may slide here. There will be very good mids/flankers with midfield capability at this range (think Clark, Rotham or Fisher etc) so hope that we do not get a bid on Waterman here.

Pick 54 – probably expecting to take Waterman here but if we do not have to, then there will be another quality player in the Jackson Nelson value available. I would be prepared to go for Goddard as a developing ruck option.

F/S prospect after 54 – not sure of all the mechanics but could take with pick 106 and go in defecit in next year meaning our 2017 3rd rounder would drop back a handful of places.

Pick 106 and beyond – there are more speculative here but I would be OK going with the likes of Guelfi, Banfield, etc. Alternatively I would be prepared to go Strnadica as a tall if we have not gone with Goddard (or maybe both). If not taking talls, it would be OK to go for Cameron as a young developing tall although Freo viewed to be keen on him and 4 picks from 71 to 115 which is about his range.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Trading our existing picks and future picks for more pick. Trading players who don't fit the category of 'development of youth' that you mentioned as being most likely to bring improvement to the team.

I'm not going to spend time thinking up hypothetical trades because that's the job of the recruiting team who are in the thick of it and are aware of what's possible. But lots of other clubs seemed to trade picks in return for either a higher pick or more lower picks, so clearly it's not impossible, and doesn't require special currency.

I'm not displeased with our trade period but I don't think we did as much as we could have to maximise the development opportunities in the draft. I think that rather than looking to the draft we are looking to our existing players and the impact that Mitchell will have on them. Which is fine. But not as exciting for us fans.

"We could have done other trades. I can't tell you what they would have been, but other clubs did so we could have as well."

 

[Keys]

View attachment 303087

Well done Keyser Soze , you've made it on to the AFL site, you're now equal with Damien Barrett...

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-20/trade-period-how-the-fans-saw-it

Haha wtf

I also made a tweet about Ballantyne being as welcome as an enema and the result being more useful

Wonder if that ones there

 

[Biggie]

I don't think we did as much as we could have to maximise the development opportunities in the draft.

How do you know this?

But not as exciting for us fans.

That sums it up really.

WCE are an organisation, trading isn't "for the fans", nor should it be.

 

[Dark Sharks]

Seems everyone is content with a best and fairest winner likely playing WAFL again in 2017 then.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Seems everyone is content with a best and fairest winner likely playing WAFL again in 2017 then.

He was contracted, he didn't want to leave and it didn't sound like anyone made much of a bid for him.

 

[Spartan]

"We could have done other trades. I can't tell you what they would have been, but other clubs did so we could have as well."

Pick 12 and 34 for 2 picks in the late teens/20s

Pick 12 + Mackenzie/Masten/<insert random player> for a pick upgrade

Pick 34 + Mackenzie/Masten/<insert random player>

Pick 34 + 2017 2nd round pick for 2016 1st round pick

Darling for Ellis-Yolman

The first and the last scenarios being the most realistic/beneficial trades.

 

[JackOutback]

Seems everyone is content with a best and fairest winner likely playing WAFL again in 2017 then.

Or, and this is out of left field, he regains his form and confidence.

 

[mattyc75]

I prefer the Stevens - swift debate from the good old days

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

 

[Dark Sharks]

He was contracted, he didn't want to leave and it didn't sound like anyone made much of a bid for him.

Fair enough, but clubs did inquire about him, and 'showed interest'. That was published several times.

And i think he's clearly worth something, he's a quality KPD after all.

Or, and this is out of left field, he regains his form and confidence.

Could happen. Yet even if he does turn it around i'm more of the opinion that he simply doesn't fit into the structure of the team anymore.

I'd love for him to make a comeback, as i agree with the notion that it could release Gov forward and Sexual could take over as 'interceptor'.

 

[Obeanie1]

With out doubt the most perplexing deal this year.

"Winners and Losers of the Draft"
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/s...nd-losers-of-the-2016-afl-trade-period/#page1


"The other great loser has to be the competition’s biggest club – Collingwood.
Their strategy smacks of some desperation and a need to protect coach Nathan Buckley’s immediate future.
Recruiting Daniel Wells and Chris Mayne as free agents unnecessarily chews into the club’s salary cap and there are question marks over the value to both players.
Wells is 31 and injury prone. Mayne is a renowned forward pressure expert, but his goal-kicking radar has been awry for three seasons.
The loss of talent in the back half in the form of Nathan Brown, Jonathon Marsh, Jack Frost and Marley Williams is also a huge concern.
If Ben Reid goes down through injury, who then takes the opposition’s best tall forward?
Trading in Lynden Dunn from Melbourne is a stop-gap measure, but little more.
Magpies’ supporters can be happy with the addition of Will Hoskin-Elliott from Greater Western Sydney, but the rest just looks messy."


People on here complain we don't trade enough but Collingwood are a basket case. Just look every year the number of players leaving or landing there on silly money. You can spin it how you like but something isn't right there. Not a stable list with far too much choping and changing going on.

Happy with our in's. Shame we didn't get anything for Brown and I would have liked Masten traded out but our list and management plan is not the debarcle that Collingwoods is.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Fair enough, but clubs did inquire about him, and 'showed interest'

That was published several times. And i think he's clearly worth something, he's a quality KPD after all.

I'm sure there was a quote from Vozzo about a week in that they hadn't fielded much interest for him.

He is clearly worth something, but if teams weren't offering a pick higher than say 30, I think he's worth more to us than a speculative draft pick.

Especially with Brown leaving and there being literally no other key defensive depth on the list.

 

[kane249]

View attachment 303087

Well done Keyser Soze , you've made it on to the AFL site, you're now equal with Damien Barrett...

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-20/trade-period-how-the-fans-saw-it

How long until you do a sliding door article Keyser Soze ?

 

[liam123]

It was a great trade period for us. Us nob heads are never going to be 100% Happy. Ideally in many of our eyes we would have somehow gained another second rounder or something similar, however even without knowing anything (I won't claim to know anything) it's easy to see why it didn't happen. Here are a couple of obvious reasons:
# time factor - Gold Coast was busy getting the JOM , Preston trades done as well as top 10 picks and probably wasn't too interested in meeting up to help us out at this point (I do still wonder what could have happened with more time).
#we had to prioritise getting the best deal on a ruck replacement.
# in a strong draft teams valued picks over players. E.g Trading a decent player to improve your third rounder by a few positions didn't happen much last year as far as I can recall.
# we probably could barely give masto, lamb etc away let alone get a decent pick back for them ( plus nobody wants to go to Gold Coast) so we might as well keep them as depth. I'd still take masto over pick 115.

All in all it's a 9/10 from me.

Thoughts?

 

[BOND 007]

Trading our existing picks and future picks for more pick. Trading players who don't fit the category of 'development of youth' that you mentioned as being most likely to bring improvement to the team.

I'm not going to spend time thinking up hypothetical trades because that's the job of the recruiting team who are in the thick of it and are aware of what's possible. But lots of other clubs seemed to trade picks in return for either a higher pick or more lower picks, so clearly it's not impossible, and doesn't require special currency.

I'm not displeased with our trade period but I don't think we did as much as we could have to maximise the development opportunities in the draft. I think that rather than looking to the draft we are looking to our existing players and the impact that Mitchell will have on them. Which is fine. But not as exciting for us fans.

1) Trading players assume other clubs want them
2) Trading picks (I assume 1 forward & 1 back) may create a problem when F/s involved. There is also an issue pertaining to the total no of picks you need if you intend further delistings
3) Trading future picks assume you have no interest in that years draft & that is incorrect.

There are a no of clubs who have decided to roll the dice on the here & now. Not so sure that's the best strategy

 

[JADED]

I was pretty convinced we'd end up with at least 2 of - Ballantyne, Conca , Petrie so to have none (so far) is pretty good.
A renewed and uninjured Vardy offers up a goal a game which helps.

 

[Coasters74]

Trading our existing picks and future picks for more pick. Trading players who don't fit the category of 'development of youth' that you mentioned as being most likely to bring improvement to the team.

I'm not going to spend time thinking up hypothetical trades because that's the job of the recruiting team who are in the thick of it and are aware of what's possible. But lots of other clubs seemed to trade picks in return for either a higher pick or more lower picks, so clearly it's not impossible, and doesn't require special currency.

I'm not displeased with our trade period but I don't think we did as much as we could have to maximise the development opportunities in the draft. I think that rather than looking to the draft we are looking to our existing players and the impact that Mitchell will have on them. Which is fine. But not as exciting for us fans.

If anything, this was the draft to throw everything in and maximise picks. Trading out next years first rounder for multiple picks etc. The players we draft this year can develop and by the time our older players retire in 2-3 years, the 2016 draftees are ready to go straight away. 3 picks in the top 100 is disappointing considering what is available.

On the other hand it seems as though most other clubs had the same idea so getting these picks would be harder than it looks from the outside. Im sure we at least asked. The Deledio/JOM trades being dragged out till the last minute didn't help that much either tbh.

EDIT: just saw that the 2017 draft is looking like it's similar to this season but with more widspread choice when it comes to position whereas this year was mostly for mids and hbf running type players. Maybe next year is the year we load up in the draft assuming Lecca, prid etc are gone at the end of the year.

 

[BOND 007]

Pick 12 and 34 for 2 picks in the late teens/20s

Pick 12 + Mackenzie/Masten/<insert random player> for a pick upgrade

Pick 34 + Mackenzie/Masten/<insert random player>

Pick 34 + 2017 2nd round pick for 2016 1st round pick

Darling for Ellis-Yolman

The first and the last scenarios being the most realistic/beneficial trades.

What happens if the kids you want are likely to be there at 12 but gone by 20?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

We've made a few pick-only trades in recent years so it's fair to say Vozzo and co are across that strategy.