List Mgmt. 2015 Trade/Draft/FA - SuperMegaUltraThread

[Sweet Jesus]

Extremely unlikely. But I dont see that as a reason not to ask. Leave no stone unturned

Who should we ask about?

 

[The Falcon Strike]

The shift in power they're worried about, I think, is more related to players nominating the club they're going to and nuking the club's ability to get the best deal possible. Ie doing an Ebert. If that expands to players regularly doing that even when under contract then things will come to a head. Beams (crook dad) and Boyd (Dogs offered plenty in trade including paying a chunk of Griffen's salary) were isolated incidents with extenuating circumstances.

I agree with you on more player power being a good thing btw. When all is said and done they're employees, and there aren't too many employees who don't get to choose who they work for.

That is where the clubs are in error. Why is their right to get their best deal possible greater than the players

A trade requires 3 signatures - clubs seem to wish to only want 2.

The balance at the moment is right - all 3 get an equal say. We didn't have to trade Ebert to Port and truthfully I wish we didn't. We got a measly pick 28.

Rather than taking a speculative pick I would rather have sent him to the draft and send a message - just like Port did with Stevens.

The clubs have power - they just choose not to use it.

 

[DanWCE]

Who should we ask about?

Im still sitting on my phone scrolling through, so not in a position to go on a good hunt and check player contract status for various clubs.

That said, you seem to be quite bullish about shutting down peoples ideas on this subject, and informing us all of how unlikely it would be that we would acquire such a player.

Given we agree its unlikely, Im not sure whats to be gained by me pulling names out of a hat and you replying that itll never happen.

For shiggles, lets say Luke Parker and Issac Smith or Brad Hill. Maybe there will be deliberation over whether they are A graders but they arent far off.

Next best option is (as Ive said elsewhere) go for Tom Mitchell who is rated highly but being held out of their team due to the likes of Parker. He is 23rd best there, probably our top 10 first picked.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Parker and Smith contracted for 2016, Hill for 2017.

I think Gunnar's point in being "bullish" is that A grade mids are an extremely scarce resource and it's not simply a matter of, as some (not necessarily you) suggest, just going out and getting one.

Personally I still think Coniglio is our best prospect for this year. I'm not sold on Mitchell, Heeney has already walked past him into the side and guys like Lloyd are ahead of him. I think he's a bit limited.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Im still sitting on my phone scrolling through, so not in a position to go on a good hunt and check player contract status for various clubs.

Can I just clarify something?

You want us to chase top-drawer, contracted midfielders, even if it means overpaying. But don't have any specific names in mind.

How long have you been with the Underpants Gnomes?

Also, how does being on your phone prevent you from addressing that? You seem to be able to type OK.

That said, you seem to be quite bullish about shutting down peoples ideas on this subject, and informing us all of how unlikely it would be that we would acquire such a player.

Certainly, I think some people need a reality check about the chances of acquiring a genuine A-grade midfielder via a trade.

Given we agree its unlikely, Im not sure whats to be gained by me pulling names out of a hat and you replying that itll never happen.

Well, maybe that suggests your initial suggestion isn't sensible.

If the only blokes you can mention wouldn't actually be gettable, doesn't that reinforce what I'm saying?

For shiggles, lets say Luke Parker and Issac Smith or Brad Hill. Maybe there will be deliberation over whether they are A graders but they arent far off.

Next best option is (as Ive said elsewhere) go for Tom Mitchell who is rated highly but being held out of their team due to the likes of Parker. He is 23rd best there, probably our top 10 first picked.

Surely Parker is the only one of those who could be considered an A-grade midfielder.

Given he's contracted, what do you think it would cost us to persuade Sydney to trade him?

 

[DanWCE]

It might be unrealistic, but I dont know if its impossible. Point being, I would like us to try, on the chance other clubs havent.

Unsure what it would cost, its close to unchartered territory. First rounder at least. Maybe throw in a recent Brownlow medallist for their flag tilt /sarcasm

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It might be unrealistic, but I dont know if its impossible. Point being, I would like us to try, on the chance other clubs havent.

Unsure what it would cost, its close to unchartered territory. First rounder at least.

First rounder? And what else?

After we've tried and failed to poach a contracted, top-drawer midfielder, what should we actually do to improve the midfield?

Also, the word is 'uncharted'. You're not hiring a boat or balancing books.

 

[DanWCE]

First rounder? And what else?

After we've tried and failed to poach a contracted, top-drawer midfielder, what should we actually do to improve the midfield?

Also, the word is 'uncharted'. You're not hiring a boat or balancing books.

Unsure, as I said. I dont work in AFL recruitment. What would you suggest?

Thanks for correcting me, that was a simple mistake to make, but Im all the better for you sharing your knowledge.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Unsure, as I said. I dont work in AFL recruitment. What would you suggest?

Do you need to 'work in recruitment' to have a view?

I'd say third-rounder for Jansen, second-rounder for Mitchell.

If we can't get Mitchell, then I'd use that second-rounder, along with downgrading our first-rounder, in a deal to get Coniglio.

Alternatively, if Selwood leaves, I'd use that (hopefully) second-rounder compo pick along with downgrading our first-rounder in order to get Coniglio. Or I'd trade out LeCras for a draft pick to help get that deal done.

That would theoretically allow us to get three young mids while retaining a pick in the first round.

Throw the likes of Masten and Schofield on the trade table as well to see what kind of picks we can get in return - adjust the deals above accordingly.

Thanks for correcting me, that was a simple mistake to make, but Im all the better for you sharing your knowledge.

Any time.

 

[DanWCE]

What do either of those have to do with Parker? What would you offer plus a first round for our magical unicorn hypothetical trade?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What do either of those have to do with Parker? What would you offer plus a first round for our magical unicorn hypothetical trade?

I wouldn't be trading for Parker. I'm not in the business of magical unicorns.

 

[hudson2006]

It seems we are looking to fix the midfield via the draft, backing Sheed/Duggan and co. to develop into premiership material.

That being the case, I'd prefer they start their careers by having good forwards to kick to, who will support and compliment their emergence.

So I wouldn't trade Kennedy or LeCras unless there was a big name young WA player wanting to go home (Jack Martin, for example) and it was the only way to get the deal done.

Good forwards are a rare commodity, and we don't have another Kennedy waiting in the wings.

 

[Art OF war]

I'm not sure why some are saying we need to destroy our forward line and trade Lecras and/or Kennedy?

My view is that the forward line do well when they get reasonably quality supply. Against stronger midfields they get less quality supply. To me this says the midfield needs more time to develop a Duggan/Sheed and possibly bring in a quality midfielder with our first rounder either through draft or trade.

We are a very young side with a great spine (when fit).

 

[Aarick13]

if we trade kennedy for an a-grade mid then what. we have this great midfield kicking to our forwards who are ... an undersized darling, lecras and an unproven in the forward line mcgovern. you cant win a premiership with just a midfield these days. we did it 10 years ago with possibly the greatest center square combination ever, but other then that every premiership team has had a power forward to kick to. Which darling is not. we should be targeting a midfielder this year in the draft or using our first rounder pick to trade one in if the right deal appeared then trying to get into jesse hogans ear and get him to come home in the near future.

 

[Woobla Stainz]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...x-footys-afl-360/story-e6frf3e3-1227316011629
Who would we be interested in ? I would take Gibbs and Buckley, What would they cost us?

 

[kerrazy]

In all honesty, when we be next challenging for a preimiership? It definitely wont be when Kennedy and Lecras are around. They are approaching 30 very fast and still have very good currency. I am all for trading one/both of them if it can help land us a very very good player that is much younger.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm not sure why some are saying we need to destroy our forward line and trade Lecras and/or Kennedy?

Trading LeCras would not 'destroy our forwardline'.

But it might net us a late first-rounder. If that was the case, you wouldn't do that deal?

The consensus seems to be emerging that we're a long way off challenging for a flag. In light of that, surely you have to look at blokes in their late 20s and ask whether it's worth trading them.

LeCras is a wonderful player but structurally he is not irreplaceable. And he's probably got three years left. If we got a decent offer, why wouldn't we consider it?

Or are we just going to stay in this fantasy land where we get something good by trading Masten or Rosa?

 

[squashface]

It seems we are looking to fix the midfield via the draft, backing Sheed/Duggan and co. to develop into premiership material.

That being the case, I'd prefer they start their careers by having good forwards to kick to, who will support and compliment their emergence.

So I wouldn't trade Kennedy or LeCras unless there was a big name young WA player wanting to go home (Jack Martin, for example) and it was the only way to get the deal done.

Good forwards are a rare commodity, and we don't have another Kennedy waiting in the wings.

Well I think preferably, our eventual forward set up will be Darling at FF, McGovern at CHF and Lamb as third tall, so I think the forward line isn't in as much strife as the backline for when Emac goes.

 

[hudson2006]

Well I think preferably, our eventual forward set up will be Darling at FF, McGovern at CHF and Lamb as third tall, so I think the forward line isn't in as much strife as the backline for when Emac goes.

Both Darling and McGovern are already best 22, and Lamb has potential but is no guarantee of being at Kennedy's level, or even the same type of player.

Quality power forwards take longer to develop and are harder to find than high draft picks/young mids. No way we're trading away Kennedy.

 

[hudson2006]

Trading LeCras would not 'destroy our forwardline'.

But it might net us a late first-rounder. If that was the case, you wouldn't do that deal?

The consensus seems to be emerging that we're a long way off challenging for a flag. In light of that, surely you have to look at blokes in their late 20s and ask whether it's worth trading them.

LeCras is a wonderful player but structurally he is not irreplaceable. And he's probably got three years left. If we got a decent offer, why wouldn't we consider it?

Or are we just going to stay in this fantasy land where we get something good by trading Masten or Rosa?

Losing LeCras would negatively affect our forward line, which is one of the only things going for us. A worse forward line plus a young developing midfield put us into the situation of getting smashed and outscored every week. Not ideal for the development of those mids.

Kennedy and LeCras have more worth to us supporting the youngsters, and if their development happens faster than anticipated then they do end up getting a crack at a flag (like veterans Embley/Cox/Kerr did in 2011/12).

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Losing LeCras would negatively affect our forward line, which is one of the only things going for us.

I suppose we should only trade players who we wouldn't miss at all?

Let's see if anyone will give us a first-rounder for Masten.

Heaven forbid we should ever put something of genuine value on the table.

A worse forward line plus a young developing midfield put us into the situation of getting smashed and outscored every week. Not ideal for the development of those mids.

That's nonsense.

LeCras turns 29 this year. He does not hold the key to all our future development.

Kennedy and LeCras have more worth to us supporting the youngsters, and if their development happens faster than anticipated then they do end up getting a crack at a flag (like veterans Embley/Cox/Kerr did in 2011/12).

I didn't say anything about Kennedy. LeCras, however, is 100 per cent tradeable for the right price.

Are you saying that you categorically would not trade LeCras for a late first-rounder?

 

[hudson2006]

I suppose we should only trade players who we wouldn't miss at all?

Let's see if anyone will give us a first-rounder for Masten.

Heaven forbid we should ever put something of genuine value on the table.

That's nonsense.

LeCras turns 29 this year. He does not hold the key to all our future development.

I didn't say anything about Kennedy. LeCras, however, is 100 per cent tradeable for the right price.

Are you saying that you categorically would not trade LeCras for a late first-rounder?

Yep, trading away a player we would miss is the definition of robbing Peter to pay Paul. We do not have anyone in the twos even close to replacing LeCras's qualities.

Players aren't put on the table unless the club has issues with them (ie. Jeff Garlett, Mitch Robinson) or they are requested as part of a bigger deal.

If a big name WA midfielder wants to come home and LeCras is the only way we can facilitate the trade, then great.

But not for a late first rounder, what a terrible idea, a desperate gamble. Wellingham was transferred for a late first rounder after all, and LeCras is on another level.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yep, trading away a player we would miss is the definition of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Nonsense. It shows an understanding that you have give up something decent to get something decent. Of course, that penny might not have dropped for everyone around here.

LeCras turns 29 this year. You have to be very conservative to consider him off-limits.

But not for a late first rounder, what a terrible idea, a desperate gamble. Wellingham was transferred for a late first rounder after all, and LeCras is on another level.

Again, LeCras will be 29 this year. Trading him for a first-rounder is hardly a 'desperate gamble'.

How is the Wellingham deal relevant? Wellingham arrived aged 24. LeCras will be 29.

 

[neng]

Good luck getting Lecras to accept the trade away. Particularly if he's still playing good footy. WA born and bred. The only way we could get him to leave was if he couldn't get a longer contract and needed a fresh start ala Lynchy

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Good luck getting Lecras to accept the trade away.

Sure. That's the hard part.

My point is that he'd be tradeable for the right price.

Particularly if he's still playing good footy. WA born and bred.

So what?

The only way we could get him to leave was if he couldn't get a longer contract and needed a fresh start ala Lynchy

Or a crack at winning a flag?

Hard to see him getting one at WC.