2010 Trading and Draft Strategy

[Blue since 72]

I started a thread some time back posing the question as to whether Chris Johnson could play an 'inside mid' role. A couple thought it could work while most of the replies ranged between the wing/HF and 'delist him'.

I'm wondering if with Hadley retiring Johnson may be kept on (i only say this because most people seem to think he's gone) for some backup.

Is a good size and did throw his body around to good effect in the couple of games he played prior to breaking his wrist? this season.

 

[rp84]

I started a thread some time back posing the question as to whether Chris Johnson could play an 'inside mid' role. A couple thought it could work while most of the replies ranged between the wing/HF and 'delist him'.

I'm wondering if with Hadley retiring Johnson may be kept on (i only say this because most people seem to think he's gone) for some backup.

Is a god size and did through his body around to good effect in the couple of games he played prior to breaking his wrist? this season.

I think yes.

People forget the game he played against Port this year. His hardness was instrumental in the win. He is one of the few remaining big bodied midfielder types.

If he didn't get injured, he would've been in our best 22. He is one of the best kicks on our list, and is well built. Is also reasonably athletic. I can't see him being moved on.

There ae guys like Anderson, Browne, Fisher, Tiller and maybe Thornton that will be moved on before this guy.

 

[Silvagnis]

Johnson is said to have been delisted, whilst Anderson has been re-signed.

Johnson would have been one of the soft players Ratten referred to in the loss to Collingwood.

Outside mid, but one paced and not accountable, so he can't play on the ball.

 

[krayfesh]

Against all odds, Johnson became relatively tough.

I saw him slice through a tree with his hair once.

 

[Blue since 72]

Johnson is said to have been delisted, whilst Anderson has been re-signed.

Johnson would have been one of the soft players Ratten referred to in the loss to Collingwood.

Outside mid, but one paced and not accountable, so he can't play on the ball.

Fair enough, although he would've had plenty of friends in the Pies game.

 

[btdg]

Considering where we are drafting this year (18, 33, 41), there will be no sure thing prospects available.

With picks in this range, the strategy as always has to be:

- seek out players who can do one or more things at an alite AFL level (ie elite speed, elite kicking, etc) rather than all-rounders (if they were good enough all-round players they would be top 10 picks).
- Ensure that the players drafted have a clear position at AFL level
- If those two criteria are met, take the best available prospect

There is no point saying 'we have to take a big guy', or 'we have to take an inside midfielder'. If you start at that point, you end up talking yourself into someone who won't work out simply because they fit a position you want to fill. Better to have a clear strategy of targetting guys you know can contribute in some way at AFL level, and sort of the rest later. If you end up with 12 outside midfielders at 9 ruckmen, well let the coach figure that out.

 

[Sin City]

This guy could be interesting as a rookie lister and to replace Jacobs on the list

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=765743

 

[BlueGibbs2011]

Considering where we are drafting this year (18, 33, 41), there will be no sure thing prospects available.

With picks in this range, the strategy as always has to be:

- seek out players who can do one or more things at an alite AFL level (ie elite speed, elite kicking, etc) rather than all-rounders (if they were good enough all-round players they would be top 10 picks).
- Ensure that the players drafted have a clear position at AFL level
- If those two criteria are met, take the best available prospect

There is no point saying 'we have to take a big guy', or 'we have to take an inside midfielder'. If you start at that point, you end up talking yourself into someone who won't work out simply because they fit a position you want to fill. Better to have a clear strategy of targetting guys you know can contribute in some way at AFL level, and sort of the rest later. If you end up with 12 outside midfielders at 9 ruckmen, well let the coach figure that out.

hmm, liked your post up until this point. Def dont want them to talk themselves into someone, but needs have to be addressed. A lot of clubs are now addressing needs, even with their first pick but then come on camera and say best available!

Wrong balance/structure of players will hold the club back permanantly!

 

[btdg]

hmm, liked your post up until this point. Def dont want them to talk themselves into someone, but needs have to be addressed. A lot of clubs are now addressing needs, even with their first pick but then come on camera and say best available!

Wrong balance/structure of players will hold the club back permanantly!

The draft is not the way to address needs. Players drafted this year won't hit their peak for 4-5 years. Too much will change in that time to worry about balance.

Consider back in 2006, when our ruckmen were Dylan McLaren and Barnaby French. We were desperate for a ruckman and took Hampson, a project ruck. 12 months later and Kreuzer came in, then we traded for Warnock, and found Jacobs on the rookie list - within 3 years getting to the point where ruckmen have to leave just to get a game. However, Hampson is no guarantee of making it, and we might well be a Kreuzer knee injury from playing O'Hailpin as our second ruckman... we're simultaneously overstocked with ruckmen, and need a ruckman.

Or take our forward setup. 13 months ago, we had a Coleman medal full-forward who could play close to goal, and no-one to lead up the ground as a CHF. In just over a year, that has completely flipped, leaving us with Waite and Henderson capable of playing up the ground, and no-one to kick a bag at full-forward.

If we desperately have a need, we can fill it by trading. But in general, the coaching staff are responsible for putting the pieces together. Don't have a full-forward? We don't need to draft one, we cover instead by crafting a strategy based around Betts/Garlett's speed. Too many outside midfielders? Open the game up more.

I still think we just take players with elite capabilities in one or more area, regardless of position, and sort out the balance later on.

 

[drusswaylander]

The draft is not the way to address needs. Players drafted this year won't hit their peak for 4-5 years. Too much will change in that time to worry about balance.

Consider back in 2006, when our ruckmen were Dylan McLaren and Barnaby French. We were desperate for a ruckman and took Hampson, a project ruck. 12 months later and Kreuzer came in, then we traded for Warnock, and found Jacobs on the rookie list - within 3 years getting to the point where ruckmen have to leave just to get a game. However, Hampson is no guarantee of making it, and we might well be a Kreuzer knee injury from playing O'Hailpin as our second ruckman... we're simultaneously overstocked with ruckmen, and need a ruckman.

Or take our forward setup. 13 months ago, we had a Coleman medal full-forward who could play close to goal, and no-one to lead up the ground as a CHF. In just over a year, that has completely flipped, leaving us with Waite and Henderson capable of playing up the ground, and no-one to kick a bag at full-forward.

If we desperately have a need, we can fill it by trading. But in general, the coaching staff are responsible for putting the pieces together. Don't have a full-forward? We don't need to draft one, we cover instead by crafting a strategy based around Betts/Garlett's speed. Too many outside midfielders? Open the game up more.

I still think we just take players with elite capabilities in one or more area, regardless of position, and sort out the balance later on.

Some good points btdg. It's probably only mids that can make an instant impact. I guess the question will be asked about whether we need another developing tall as a future Waite replacement or a possible future tall back upgrade.

Rucks actually seem to have become of lesser value as a number of decent ones have come on the market over recent years. The good KPP seems to have become the tough one to trade for IMO. The free agency may make it a little easier to get a good one.

 

[DamoESP]

Johnson is said to have been delisted, whilst Anderson has been re-signed.

Johnson would have been one of the soft players Ratten referred to in the loss to Collingwood.

Outside mid, but one paced and not accountable, so he can't play on the ball.

If thats true, thats ****ed.

Johnson has shown so much more than that hack Anderson, or Browne.

 

[davis_756]

This guy could be interesting as a rookie lister and to replace Jacobs on the list

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=765743

End of rookie draft at best CMFL isn't a really high grade comp, Luke Livingston kicked 100 goals a few years ago for Kerang in this comp, Jarrod Arentz that played in the legends game a few years ago is also from this comp.

Mind you I haven't seen him play since I follow the grfl instead.

 

[BlueGibbs2011]

The draft is not the way to address needs. Players drafted this year won't hit their peak for 4-5 years. Too much will change in that time to worry about balance.

Consider back in 2006, when our ruckmen were Dylan McLaren and Barnaby French. We were desperate for a ruckman and took Hampson, a project ruck. 12 months later and Kreuzer came in, then we traded for Warnock, and found Jacobs on the rookie list - within 3 years getting to the point where ruckmen have to leave just to get a game. However, Hampson is no guarantee of making it, and we might well be a Kreuzer knee injury from playing O'Hailpin as our second ruckman... we're simultaneously overstocked with ruckmen, and need a ruckman.

Or take our forward setup. 13 months ago, we had a Coleman medal full-forward who could play close to goal, and no-one to lead up the ground as a CHF. In just over a year, that has completely flipped, leaving us with Waite and Henderson capable of playing up the ground, and no-one to kick a bag at full-forward.

If we desperately have a need, we can fill it by trading. But in general, the coaching staff are responsible for putting the pieces together. Don't have a full-forward? We don't need to draft one, we cover instead by crafting a strategy based around Betts/Garlett's speed. Too many outside midfielders? Open the game up more.

I still think we just take players with elite capabilities in one or more area, regardless of position, and sort out the balance later on.

I think you'll find it is very difficult to fill an AFL class need via trading. Just take a look at this trade period. We have 3-4 needs and addressed none in terms of quality. Yes, we got 2 hopefuls but failed on 3-5 players we really wanted, e.g. Tarrant/Brennan etc. If you look across the league during trade period there is only a couple of clubs who picked up quality + need. ..the rest hopefuls on their last legs.

I think it is easy to secure prospects by trade like Laidler/Collins but both are low odds of making it. More chance filling a need via first two rounds of the draft easily.

Also, we have to define need. I dont see need as in a player we need right now...I see a need as in filling a ten year need, e.g. we have no monster KPP back...we need to address this need for a ten year period. Best bet is in the draft...not during trade week...this view is based on probability of success.

 

[Silvagnis]

If thats true, thats ****ed.

Johnson has shown so much more than that hack Anderson, or Browne.

I guess that's why Melbourne didn't want to keep Johnson.

Both Anderson and Johnson played five games this year, so it isn't like we're losing Gibbs to keep Grigg.

And Browne has shown more than Johnson at Carlton.

So stop slagging them off as hacks and portraying Johnson as a good player that we can't afford to lose.

 

[BlueGibbs2011]

If thats true, thats ****ed.

Johnson has shown so much more than that hack Anderson, or Browne.

Johnson has had more time than the other two to prove themselves. I'm sure it was a close call though.

I tend to think Johnson can't do the job week in week out. Seems when he came back, he fired for a week or two then disappeared. Not the type of player we need. If Browne puts it together, you'll never see him shirk anything, and if he does make the grade, he'll provide more consistency...worth giving him one last shot.

Actually, I dont think any of the 3 will make it. Of the three, Browne still has some hope. The others none.

 

[Mister Carlton]

I might start a thread on this but...WE SHOULD DRAFT GREG BENTLEY!!!!!




..

efa.

 

[jackoisno1]

Joe Anderson needs to get delisted asap.
The likely outs for us should be: Chris Johnson, Richard Hadley, Fisher, Grigg, Anderson, Wiggins, Tiller and Jacobs. Also Donaldson.
So thats 8 senior spots we have to cover. We Upgrade Garlett and Ellard plus Collins and Laider then have picks 18,33,41,67 in the draft ?

Does Anyone have any information about Peter Labi or Blake Bray coming to us??

 

[Gezim]

if we land watson, we can build a team and add to the team with him in it, could make us the complete side. next year we dont pay none of fev's contract. so plenty of salary to play with, as long its youth, but hope we get watson

 

[Azul]

So thats 8 senior spots we have to cover. We Upgrade Garlett and Ellard plus Collins and Laider then have picks 18,33,41,67 in the draft ?

There are murmurings about a cap on the number of rookies we can retain. So it's possible we could promote Simon White too. Although the precedent is that we usually don't promote our rookies after one year. After half a dozen games he showed enough that he'd be worthy of a spot on the senior list.

So if that's the case, S Browne might be added to the potential list of delistees too. I think Browne can still be a valueable defensive midfielder but he needs to gain a yard of pace over the preseason to be any chance of playing senior footy.

 

[blueblood25]

So it's possible we could promote Simon White too. Although the precedent is that we usually don't promote our rookies after one year. After half a dozen games he showed enough that he'd be worthy of a spot on the senior list.

Simon is already on the senior list.
Here

Joe Anderson needs to get delisted asap.
The likely outs for us should be: Chris Johnson, Richard Hadley, Fisher, Grigg, Anderson, Wiggins, Tiller and Jacobs. Also Donaldson.
So thats 8 senior spots we have to cover. We Upgrade Garlett and Ellard plus Collins and Laider then have picks 18,33,41,67 in the draft ?

Does Anyone have any information about Peter Labi or Blake Bray coming to us??

I think Labi might have another year before we decide if we want to draft him. The rules seem to have been eased during the expansion period.

So we have 5 players currently listed, soon to be 4 on the Rookie list in Cachia, Casboult, Dare, Donaldson (definitely delisted) and Tuohy. The others on that list should be safe for another year right?

 

[Jeremias]

Simon is already on the senior list.
Here

As I've said previously, I reckon that's because he (along with Ellard and Garlett) were all eligible to play senior footy by the end of the season, as opposed to them having been permanently elevated.

I could be wrong but at this stage that's what I'm thinking.

So we have 5 players currently listed, soon to be 4 on the Rookie list in Cachia, Casboult, Dare, Donaldson (definitely delisted) and Tuohy. The others on that list should be safe for another year right?

The only player that we have to make a decision on this year is Ellard who has had his 3 years on the rookie list so must now be either elevated or delisted.

Garlett has signed a 2 year contract so has been elevated to the senior list but we had the opportunity to keep him on the rookie list for another season if we wanted.

White, Cachia, Casboult, Dare, Donaldson and Tuohy all have had 1 year on the rookie list so could potentially each have another 2 years (more if they are delisted then re-rookied) on the rookie list if the club went down that path. AFAIK Donaldson hasn't definitely been delisted (nothing official from the club as yet) but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. White would be the only other chance to be elevated permanently to the senior list this season, but unless absolutely necessary I would've preferred to keep him on the rookie list as a nominated rookie next season. The other 4, I would think and hope, are absolutely safe and will get at least 1 more year on the rookie list.

 

[Stamos]

As Garlett has been given a contract (and therefore promoted), Donaldson apparently delisted, and Ellard can no longer be a rookie (ie promoted or delisted) Tuohy is international, so different rules apply, that leaves White, Cachia, Casboult and Dare. We can only keep 3 of those on the rookie list, without delisting and re-rookieing one.
If White is promoted, the other 3 can stay

 

[blueblood25]

AFAIK Donaldson hasn't definitely been delisted (nothing official from the club as yet) but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

It was from Josh's mouth, so yes, it's happening.

Thanks for clearing up what i was wondering with Simon

 

[qldbluesman_43]

Joe Anderson needs to get delisted asap.
The likely outs for us should be: Chris Johnson, Richard Hadley, Fisher, Grigg, Anderson, Wiggins, Tiller and Jacobs. Also Donaldson.
So thats 8 senior spots we have to cover. We Upgrade Garlett and Ellard plus Collins and Laider then have picks 18,33,41,67 in the draft ?

Does Anyone have any information about Peter Labi or Blake Bray coming to us??

If we're not going to use 5 picks in the draft what was the point of our Jacobs deal?

 

[Jeremias]

As Garlett has been given a contract (and therefore promoted), Donaldson apparently delisted, and Ellard can no longer be a rookie (ie promoted or delisted) Tuohy is international, so different rules apply, that leaves White, Cachia, Casboult and Dare. We can only keep 3 of those on the rookie list, without delisting and re-rookieing one.
If White is promoted, the other 3 can stay

Where in the rules is this stipulated?

I've seen a few posters write the same thing but am yet to see any official confirmation of that.

It would be a really silly rule implemented by the AFL........so therefore it must actually be true