West Coast topping up

[Sweet Jesus]

My original point was that we didn't give up our drafting position to bring these players in.

But it did dilute our draft position.

I was looking at the net ins/outs and there are replacements for everything given up.

How did we replace the first-round pick we traded out?

Replacing a first-rounder with a second-rounder is usually just referred to as a "downgrade".

 

[DaVillaBlues]

I honestly thought that The Eagles did really well in the national draft, Petrie on a minimum wage rookie list spot isn't the end of the world.

Now Recruiting Wells and Mayne on big money, now that is the topping up to beat all topping ups

 

[mightymouse75]

Any fit ruckmen besides Simpsons nate Petrie?

 

[ronpingwins]

But it did dilute our draft position.

How did we replace the first-round pick we traded out?

Replacing a first-rounder with a second-rounder is usually just referred to as a "downgrade".

Yes, but minor I think. You're getting too hung up on the technicalities of First/Second Rounder. It was a downgrade of 17 to 23 and 57 to 62 and upgrade of 36 to 31.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yes, but minor I think. You're getting too hung up on the technicalities of First/Second Rounder.

The technicalities of pointing out that a pick "downgrade" isn't a "replacement"?

It was a downgrade of 17 to 23 and 57 to 62 and upgrade of 36 to 31.

And another second-rounder that we gave up altogether. Before you even get to the players we traded out.

 

[Scotland]

Can any pick be replaced? I mean can you trade pick 10 and get a different pick 10 in return?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Can any pick be replaced? I mean can you trade pick 10 and get a different pick 10 in return?

You might argue that the value of pick 10 could be matched with two later picks of combined equivalent value.

 

[Gumby2Hurley]

classic b8 from op

 

[flyinghi64]

Por que no los dos?

1 Finalist in the first half of the graph with the other 7 in the second half.
This tells me Dogs just have exceptional youth compared to the average.

 

[Big_Birdy]

I think if we didn't know we were getting Francis Watson at Cat B then we probably don't pick up Petrie. He was the project player youd usually use the last Rookie Pick on.

 

[Keys]

Por que no los dos?

Bulldogs are a statistical outlier - all the other finalists from 2016 are at the back half of that table. Lets not forget that you finished the H&A season in 7th albeit with 15 wins in a very tight season at the top. You were also the side that benefited most from the pre-finals bye and not unlike Adelaide in 1997/98 got hot at precisely the right time

It'll be interesting to see how the Bulldogs back up in 2017

 

[ronpingwins]

The technicalities of pointing out that a pick "downgrade" isn't a "replacement"?

And another second-rounder that we gave up altogether. Before you even get to the players we traded out.

No it isn't be

The technicalities of pointing out that a pick "downgrade" isn't a "replacement"?

And another second-rounder that we gave up altogether. Before you even get to the players we traded out.

More that referring to a round pick covers a broad range of picks, using that in isolation doesn't give an accurate picture. The extra second Rounder is for Selwood, you can't count both.

I'd argue that 23+31 is equivalent to 17+36 and that with 57 to 62, it's deep enough you are likely to get the player you want regardless. Player wise Giles replaced Sinclair as the third ruck, Jetta for Rosa and Redden for Selwood. I'm not saying that the players we brought in didn't suck in the end, but had replacements for every player that left and our draft position was of similar value.

 

[getgaff]

Petrie is a reliable key forward capable of replacing Kennedy?

We should have got Zac Dawson as cover for McGovern.

Never said replacing but if Kennedy went down with injury there's very little in reserve apart from the inexperienced Allan and Vardy who isn't really a key forward.

If it was to happen we can replace JK or Darling with a 400 goal, 300 game forward who wouldn't draw the best defender either.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No it isn't be

Huh?

More that referring to a round pick covers a broad range of picks, using that in isolation doesn't give an accurate picture.

Nor does euphemistically referring to a pick downgrade as a "replacement".

The extra second Rounder is for Selwood, you can't count both.

I'm counting the compensation pick for Selwood and our existing second-rounder, both of which we traded out to get pick 23 back from the Swans.

So yeah, I'll count both if we're looking at picks exclusively.

I'd argue that 23+31 is equivalent to 17+36 and that with 57 to 62

So when you add in the additional second-rounder that we traded out, it would be a loss.

I believe it was pick 37.

Player wise Giles replaced Sinclair as the third ruck, Jetta for Rosa and Redden for Selwood. I'm not saying that the players we brought in didn't suck in the end, but had replacements for every player that left and our draft position was of similar value.

Well, our draft position wasn't of similar value, as has been explained above. And Jetta and Redden have done SFA.

And this assumes Sinclair was of equivalent value to Giles, which he wasn't. Sinclair was apparently equivalent value to Jetta. Giles was free to a good home.

It was Sinclair + Selwood + Rosa + pick 17 + pick 36 for Redden + Jetta + pick 23 + pick 31.

You don't get to shoehorn Giles in there and pretend that he evens it out when he was of negligible trade value.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Never said replacing but if Kennedy went down with injury there's very little in reserve apart from the inexperienced Allan and Vardy who isn't really a key forward.

If it was to happen we can replace JK or Darling with a 400 goal, 300 game forward who wouldn't draw the best defender either.

We should recruit Matthew Lloyd and then we could replace Kennedy with a 900-goal forward. Imagine that.

And then we could recruit you to polish our turds for us.

 

[ronpingwins]

Huh?

I counting the compensation pick and our existing second-rounder, both of which we traded out to get pick 23 back from the Swans.

So yeah, I'll count both.

So when you add in the additional second-rounder that we traded out, it would be a loss.

I believe it was pick 37.

Well, our draft position wasn't of similar value, as has been explained above. And Jetta and Redden have done SFA.

Yeah can't help you there. Think I started posting, got distracted and then started again.

Yes 36 and 37. But one was for Selwood. Which changes our net player change. My only argument was that our initial draft picks were of similar value to our picks that we took to the draft, and that we traded in players in the same position that left. I am in no way arguing that we shouldn't have kept the picks or that Redden and Jetta haven't been useless.

Net Trades were
17/36/57 for 23/31/62
Rosa/Selwood/Sinclair for Jetta/Redden/Giles.

I'm not arguing that the traded players weren't terrible. I think we should have kept Selwood's compensation and avoided Redden or Jetta. But we had equivalent value in draft picks to our initial position and didn't lose useful players, given Rosa/Selwood/Sinclairs form this season. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Hairy Lager]

Their list is in a world of trouble.
15 players over the age of 30 and no real youth coming through.

I like the move to bring these older players tho cause if they don't challenge this year then their windows closed.

They are in for a world of pain after next year tho. Bottom 4 for sure.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

My only argument was that our initial draft picks were of similar value to our picks that we took to the draft

If you frame it as 17/36/57 for 23/31/62 then the ones on the left are more valuable.

Net Trades were
17/36/57 for 23/31/62
Rosa/Selwood/Sinclair for Jetta/Redden/Giles.

I struggle to see how that was a win, particularly when you consider that Giles had basically zero trade value.

Take him, pick 57 and pick 62 out of it. It ain't pretty.

You're left with pick 17 + 36 for pick 23 + 31. A loss for WC. The earlier the downgrade, the more significant.

That leaves Sinclair, Selwood and Rosa going out for Jetta and Redden. Also a loss for WC, I'd suggest. Based on 2016.

Throwing Giles in there as some kind of makeweight, when he was basically free to a good home, doesn't tip the scales very far back the right way.

But we had equivalent value in draft picks to our initial position

Not really.

The downgrade from 17 to 23 isn't balanced out by the upgrade from 36 to 31. And we took a later downgrade on top of that.

Just on the face of it, that's diminished value for us. I'd be interested to see how it stacks up with the official points calculator.

and didn't lose useful players, given Rosa/Selwood/Sinclairs form this season.

At least Rosa and Sinclair were best 22 when they left. Are Jetta and Redden?

They were meant to be.

 

[ronpingwins]

If you frame it as 17/36/57 for 23/31/62 then the ones on the left are more valuable.

I struggle to see how that was a win, particularly when you consider that Giles had basically zero trade value.

Take him, pick 57 and pick 62 out of it. It ain't pretty.

You're left with pick 17 + 36 for pick 23 + 31. A loss for WC. The earlier the downgrade, the more significant.

That leaves Sinclair, Selwood and Rosa going out for Jetta and Redden. Also a loss for WC, I'd suggest. Based on 2016.

Throwing Giles in there as some kind of makeweight, when he was basically free to a good home, doesn't tip the scales very far back the right way.

Not really.

The downgrade from 17 to 23 isn't balanced out by the upgrade from 36 to 31. And we took a later downgrade on top of that.

Just on the face of it, that's diminished value for us. I'd be interested to see how it stacks up with the official points calculator.

At least Rosa and Sinclair were best 22 when they left. Are Jetta and Redden?

They were meant to be.

The view at the time was that Lycett, if fully fit, was of a similar quality or better than Sinclair. So by trading in Giles for little to be our third ruckman behind NN/Lycett, we downgrade in our backup in Sinclair, for a good player in Jetta. I agree Jetta turned out to be terrible and Sinclair would be handy with our injuries. I am in no way disputing that. Based on 2016, Selwood played 5 games, Rosa 15 and Sinclair 16, although according to Swans fans here, performed worse than 3 other ruckmen. 57 to 62 isn't significant at all. 17+36 vs 23+31 may lean slightly towards the left, I'd agree, but I'd say it's minor, teams often downgrade early picks for later upgrades, i.e. Port Adelaide this year (Who stated the player they thought would be available at 9 would be there at 14) or our trade with Collingwood to pick up Yeo (We supposedly planned to pick Sheed at 6 or 11). I am in no way saying these trades were a win, they sucked, I'm just saying we hit the draft in a similar, or slightly weakened position from these trades.

 

[Catsnlakers]

Any fit ruckmen besides Simpsons nate Petrie?

Nice play on words.

 

[mehow2g]

Eagles have the list, the biggest problem is confidence and there are a few who I think rock up to grab a paycheck and the status that comes with being a footballer.

Some of the very gifted players just don't want it enough, when the going gets tough for the eagles into the shells they go.

 

[HairyO]

So its agreed:
Mitchell = +1
Petrie = - infinty

Unless you are playing a game of Go Possum.

 

[dumb]

petrie looked as shot this year as any player i've seen. maybe playing ruck will get more out of him than his awful last season with north.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The view at the time was that Lycett, if fully fit, was of a similar quality or better than Sinclair.

Some people felt that way, but that doesn't mean Sinclair was of no more value than Giles.

So by trading in Giles for little to be our third ruckman behind NN/Lycett, we downgrade in our backup in Sinclair, for a good player in Jetta. I agree Jetta turned out to be terrible and Sinclair would be handy with our injuries. I am in no way disputing that. Based on 2016, Selwood played 5 games, Rosa 15 and Sinclair 16, although according to Swans fans here, performed worse than 3 other ruckmen.

Yeah, so it was Sinclair for Jetta. Forget about Giles.

When you subtract that, you're left with big overs for Redden.

57 to 62 isn't significant at all. 17+36 vs 23+31 may lean slightly towards the left, I'd agree, but I'd say it's minor

There's no maybe. The early downgrade is not compensated by the later upgrade.

teams often downgrade early picks for later upgrades, i.e. Port Adelaide this year (Who stated the player they thought would be available at 9 would be there at 14) or our trade with Collingwood to pick up Yeo (We supposedly planned to pick Sheed at 6 or 11).

And whether these exchanges are justified depends entirely on the picks involved.

The exchange noted above doesn't constitute a break-even.

I am in no way saying these trades were a win, they sucked, I'm just saying we hit the draft in a similar, or slightly weakened position from these trades.

We went to the draft in a weaker position. There's no question.

The downgrade from 17 to 23 is not balanced out by upgrading 36 to 31. That's a weaker position. There's no two ways about it.

 

[Brick Loosener]

Do the Eagles see themselves as challengers?

If you believe the papers they've been top 4 for the past 5 years.