Analysis 2017 List Management Discussion

[F_therest]

Murphy is not our best player !

Yes he is.

And why argue the point? If not the best he'd be top 3 for sure and our best performing mid this year.

 

[F_therest]

Docherty, Cripps, Simpson, Gibbs for a start....

You forgot Kreuzer.

Murphy, Docherty & Kreuzer would be our top 3 this year.
Cripps, Simpson & Gibbs a step below.

 

[DangerousD]

I've also heard of learning from mistakes.

Do you think if the Dees actually new how to draft we would still use them in these hypotheticals?

If Hughes had of traded out all the guys SOS had and drafted in duds instead of the guys we have brought in, was the process right or wrong?

 

[F_therest]

This is all sound logic BUT it should/would/could only ever happen if Murphy was willing to do it. AND it would be the ultimate sacrifice for the future of our club (arguably)

While the trade Murphy argument if it helps us get Kelly, Hopper etc logic is sound on paper, there are obviously the intangibles at risk such as culture.
If i was SOS i would not even mention to Murph that we'd be open to trading him...could result in a Hawthorn and Lewis type situation.

Let's be honest, Lewis, who was a champion and loyal servant, was pissed off and disgruntled by being offered up for trade and that's a big reason why he left for Melbourne, even after Hawthorn changed their mind and wanted to keep him after Mitchell left.

We've seen it negatively affect Hawthorn's famous culture.

In-house, Murphy seems to be regarded very highly by just about everyone and i can't see us throwing him aside ruthlessly when we are trying to preach 'unity' and the idea that you get rewarded if you abide by the clubs standards. This is the big one for me...you can't preach all this 'unity' stuff and then toss aside the club captain who is the current leader of the playing group and embodies our club values. It's just a huge no-no in ANY organisation. It sends the message to everyone at the club that no one is 'safe' and that even if you do everything we ask of you and more, we can still dispose of you at any time. Organisations that 'do right' by their loyal servants are the ones that succeed. I am very confident Bolton will not even entertain trading Murphy unless Murphy approaches him, which i doubt he will.

This is not the same as Bulldogs and Griffen. Griffen was the one who demanded out and was a reluctant captain to begin with...he clearly did not have a great relationship with the other players anyway. Murphy does appear to have the respect of all the boys.

 

[Stamos]

People are fine for us to trade two first round draft picks but any talk of trading an aging captain and suddenly the club is going to be set back. I don't care what happened to Melbourne, I haven't looked into it

1. It's not about an ageing player, it's about trading out a critical mass of our core senior players.
2. Well you should. Trading our too many senior players is disastrous, and just means we'll need to do another rebuild in a few years.

 

[F_therest]

But we're not talking about deals when it comes to some names.
We've simply stone-walled any notion of it, for not particularly good reasons and in some cases for no reason at all.

We may be able to do that here, but I'd be very disappointed in the CFC should they do the same. That would not serve our primary interest; The Club.

I get what you're saying but being realistic, in my eyes and many posters here no club would offer a deal to be considered such 'overs' that we'd be willing to trade Murphy.

Another club probably only gives us a late teens pick at the most for a 30 year old. Even that is optimistic. In no way is that enough for Carlton to trade it's captain and one of our best players.

Sure, i'd trade him if GWS offered Kelly & Hopper for Murphy, but that's not going to happen.

 

[F_therest]

Judging by everything we hear from the club itself players like Murphy and Kreuzer are very much part of the fabric of the club. They are clearly held up as examples to the other players and are valued in their mentoring roles as much as their on-field roles. Not to mention that they have been our best performed players this year.

Listen to Bolton speak of them and listen to what the younger players have to say about them and I doubt very much the club would ever initiate moving them on. You can't keep putting these guys up as examples of the type of people you want all your players to be and then suddenly get rid of them.

Losing these types of people around the club won't catapult us forward, it would instead have the possibility of undermining everything we are trying to build IMO.

Basically this. Read this over again peeps.

Sure, let's use Murph and Kreuz as examples of shining lights and leaders of our footy club who embody everything we are trying to be as a club and the kind of high standard all our other players need to aspire to...only to then mercilessly trade them.

What would that do to our culture and the mindset of the team? Only bad things.

As we've seen constantly, a good culture is the most important thing a footy club can have.
It's what gets players 'buying in' and helps develop all youngsters we draft, even those picked late.

Simply having what appears to be a talented list on paper is useless if the culture is crap...eg Gold Coast.

 

[azlou]

Have you never heard the saying, if at first you don't succeed, dust yourself off and try again or get back on the horse? Just because something doesn't work once doesn't mean it won't work ever or that it's the right way to go about things.

If at first you don't succeed sky diving isn't for you

 

[ray8182]

This possible Kelly trade has left me a bit confused. Confused because lm not sure what l would give up for him. Previously l posted that pick 3 and pick 15-18(Adelaide) might be fair. Now l keep asking myself would l rather go to the draft with those picks or take Kelly?

This situation is a bit like how gws came to having pick 2. They gave up Dom Tyson and pick 9 to get Kelly. Dom Tyson was a pick 3. If Carlton ends up with pick 3 and pick 15(Adelaide) and goes to the draft with those picks it's quite possible we could end with players of similar ability to that Melbourne pair.

Dom Tyson - good solid inside midfielder averaging 25 possessions, 10 contested.
Christian Salem - improving half back, quality disposal, av. 22 possessions.

Many say, in hindsight, Melbourne made the wrong call in giving up pick 2 and that gws made the correct call in giving up, effectively, two top ten picks. Yet we also say we wouldn't give up two top ten picks to get Kelly. It can be quite contradictory(Obviously a lot hinges on what you do with the picks).

Personally l really want to see Carlton build depth in the midfield. Because of this the Kelly trade concerns me on two fronts.
1. We give up the possibility of getting 2 quality players( build depth) for one known elite player.
2. Could rise up ladder before we have created midfield depth, reducing quality of subsequent picks.

One thing that can diminish a players value is the number of seasons he has already played. GWS will have gotten 4 seasons out of Kelly. 4 seasons that Carlton won't get compared to our pick 3 from the draft (note very high draft pick midfielders play and contribute as early as first year). How much does the loss of 3 or 4 years factor in?

With the quality of today's drafting a top 5 pick can almost guarantee you a quality midfielder. You can't expect this player to be as good as Kelly but the gap might not be that much. Then pick 15 gives you another crack at a good player.

I just don't want to see a repeat of the past with too much left to too few. I would give up pick 3 but not keen on giving up pick 15. What to do?


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Old navy]

This possible Kelly trade has left me a bit confused. Confused because lm not sure what l would give up for him. Previously l posted that pick 3 and pick 15-18(Adelaide) might be fair. Now l keep asking myself would l rather go to the draft with those picks or take Kelly?

This situation is a bit like how gws came to having pick 2. They gave up Dom Tyson and pick 9 to get Kelly. Dom Tyson was a pick 3. If Carlton ends up with pick 3 and pick 15(Adelaide) and goes to the draft with those picks it's quite possible we could end with players of similar ability to that Melbourne pair.

Dom Tyson - good solid inside midfielder averaging 25 possessions, 10 contested.
Christian Salem - improving half back, quality disposal, av. 22 possessions.

Many say, in hindsight, Melbourne made the wrong call in giving up pick 2 and that gws made the correct call in giving up, effectively, two top ten picks. Yet we also say we wouldn't give up two top ten picks to get Kelly. It can be quite contradictory(Obviously a lot hinges on what you do with the picks).

Personally l really want to see Carlton build depth in the midfield. Because of this the Kelly trade concerns me on two fronts.
1. We give up the possibility of getting 2 quality players( build depth) for one known elite player.
2. Could rise up ladder before we have created midfield depth, reducing quality of subsequent picks.

One thing that can diminish a players value is the number of seasons he has already played. GWS will have gotten 4 seasons out of Kelly. 4 seasons that Carlton won't get compared to our pick 3 from the draft (note very high draft pick midfielders play and contribute as early as first year). How much does the loss of 3 or 4 years factor in?

With the quality of today's drafting a top 5 pick can almost guarantee you a quality midfielder. You can't expect this player to be as good as Kelly but the gap might not be that much. Then pick 15 gives you another crack at a good player.

I just don't want to see a repeat of the past with too much left to too few. I would give up pick 3 but not keen on giving up pick 15. What to do?


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Think our first pick this year, pick 1-3, plus a future 2nd rounder pick 20-25.
If we need to do some swapping of later picks to get it done, I'm all good wit that.

 

[StandByyourMan]

While the trade Murphy argument if it helps us get Kelly, Hopper etc logic is sound on paper, there are obviously the intangibles at risk such as culture.
If i was SOS i would not even mention to Murph that we'd be open to trading him...could result in a Hawthorn and Lewis type situation.

Let's be honest, Lewis, who was a champion and loyal servant, was pissed off and disgruntled by being offered up for trade and that's a big reason why he left for Melbourne, even after Hawthorn changed their mind and wanted to keep him after Mitchell left.

We've seen it negatively affect Hawthorn's famous culture.

In-house, Murphy seems to be regarded very highly by just about everyone and i can't see us throwing him aside ruthlessly when we are trying to preach 'unity' and the idea that you get rewarded if you abide by the clubs standards. This is the big one for me...you can't preach all this 'unity' stuff and then toss aside the club captain who is the current leader of the playing group and embodies our club values. It's just a huge no-no in ANY organisation. It sends the message to everyone at the club that no one is 'safe' and that even if you do everything we ask of you and more, we can still dispose of you at any time. Organisations that 'do right' by their loyal servants are the ones that succeed. I am very confident Bolton will not even entertain trading Murphy unless Murphy approaches him, which i doubt he will.

This is not the same as Bulldogs and Griffen. Griffen was the one who demanded out and was a reluctant captain to begin with...he clearly did not have a great relationship with the other players anyway. Murphy does appear to have the respect of all the boys.

Totally totally agree

 

[StandByyourMan]

While the trade Murphy argument if it helps us get Kelly, Hopper etc logic is sound on paper, there are obviously the intangibles at risk such as culture.
If i was SOS i would not even mention to Murph that we'd be open to trading him...could result in a Hawthorn and Lewis type situation.

Let's be honest, Lewis, who was a champion and loyal servant, was pissed off and disgruntled by being offered up for trade and that's a big reason why he left for Melbourne, even after Hawthorn changed their mind and wanted to keep him after Mitchell left.

We've seen it negatively affect Hawthorn's famous culture.

In-house, Murphy seems to be regarded very highly by just about everyone and i can't see us throwing him aside ruthlessly when we are trying to preach 'unity' and the idea that you get rewarded if you abide by the clubs standards. This is the big one for me...you can't preach all this 'unity' stuff and then toss aside the club captain who is the current leader of the playing group and embodies our club values. It's just a huge no-no in ANY organisation. It sends the message to everyone at the club that no one is 'safe' and that even if you do everything we ask of you and more, we can still dispose of you at any time. Organisations that 'do right' by their loyal servants are the ones that succeed. I am very confident Bolton will not even entertain trading Murphy unless Murphy approaches him, which i doubt he will.

This is not the same as Bulldogs and Griffen. Griffen was the one who demanded out and was a reluctant captain to begin with...he clearly did not have a great relationship with the other players anyway. Murphy does appear to have the respect of all the boys.

I actually feel a bit dirty talking about it. That's why i was advocating shutting down this talk. Or suppressing it as one hot head on here said.

 

[Donstuie]

So...still talking about Murphy, huh?

 

[SurreyBlue]

You need your leaders such as Murphy, Gibbs, Kruezer, Simpson, etc. to guide and allow the kids to grow.
Points finger at Hawthorn re: Mitchell/Lewis situation and current predicament and walks out of thread discussion........

 

[GapInIkonPark]

How about Balic for Boekwurst

Balic will cost us a draft pick. Freo, if it was interested in Boekhorst, will get him as a delisted free agent.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

... We have drafted fantastically the last few years with the law of averages suggesting we will get it wrong in the next year or two.

That is a success rate of 66.6% which is historically higher than all clubs recruiting strike rate.

The law of averages says we are behind still for the Rogers and Hughes years.

Agree SOS has nailed it the last 2 drafts (and in pre-draft trading).

 

[GapInIkonPark]

...
SOS will do the best he can for us, as that's his job and if it means letting go of Buckley, or trading to advantage.......that's what he must do.

Still hanging onto hope that Buckley stays on next year Harks?

I have no doubt that SOS is evaluating the bottom 8 or so players - I'll call it ... White, Armfield (both IMO likely to retire), Gorringe, Buckley, Jaksch, Boekhorst and Graham (Palmer, Kerridge and Smedts contracted for 2018) - against likely draftees and other recruits available.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

Do you think if the Dees actually new how to draft we would still use them in these hypotheticals?

If Hughes had of traded out all the guys SOS had and drafted in duds instead of the guys we have brought in, was the process right or wrong?

Hughes would never have thought of it.
The process has to include identifying, drafting and developing the talent.
If it doesn't, then clearing out players for draft picks and then choosing a Lucas, a Bootsma, a Watson, etc. with those picks ... our Carlton would be set back a decade and may be relocating to establish the Tasmanian team.

 

[HARKER]

Still hanging onto hope that Buckley stays on next year Harks?

I have no doubt that SOS is evaluating the bottom 8 or so players - I'll call it ... White, Armfield (both IMO likely to retire), Gorringe, Buckley, Jaksch, Boekhorst and Graham (Palmer, Kerridge and Smedts contracted for 2018) - against likely draftees and other recruits available.

Where have I ever 'hoped' for Buckley to stay?

 

[DangerousD]

Balic will cost us a draft pick. Freo, if it was interested in Boekhorst, will get him as a delisted free agent.

Not sure about this. Balic was originally a 3rd round pick and in his 2 seasons hasn't done anything to suggest he will be a good player. His personal issues haven't helped his low trade value either. Is he still on indefinite leave?

 

[DangerousD]

This possible Kelly trade has left me a bit confused. Confused because lm not sure what l would give up for him. Previously l posted that pick 3 and pick 15-18(Adelaide) might be fair. Now l keep asking myself would l rather go to the draft with those picks or take Kelly?

This situation is a bit like how gws came to having pick 2. They gave up Dom Tyson and pick 9 to get Kelly. Dom Tyson was a pick 3. If Carlton ends up with pick 3 and pick 15(Adelaide) and goes to the draft with those picks it's quite possible we could end with players of similar ability to that Melbourne pair.

Dom Tyson - good solid inside midfielder averaging 25 possessions, 10 contested.
Christian Salem - improving half back, quality disposal, av. 22 possessions.

Many say, in hindsight, Melbourne made the wrong call in giving up pick 2 and that gws made the correct call in giving up, effectively, two top ten picks. Yet we also say we wouldn't give up two top ten picks to get Kelly. It can be quite contradictory(Obviously a lot hinges on what you do with the picks).

Personally l really want to see Carlton build depth in the midfield. Because of this the Kelly trade concerns me on two fronts.
1. We give up the possibility of getting 2 quality players( build depth) for one known elite player.
2. Could rise up ladder before we have created midfield depth, reducing quality of subsequent picks.

One thing that can diminish a players value is the number of seasons he has already played. GWS will have gotten 4 seasons out of Kelly. 4 seasons that Carlton won't get compared to our pick 3 from the draft (note very high draft pick midfielders play and contribute as early as first year). How much does the loss of 3 or 4 years factor in?

With the quality of today's drafting a top 5 pick can almost guarantee you a quality midfielder. You can't expect this player to be as good as Kelly but the gap might not be that much. Then pick 15 gives you another crack at a good player.

I just don't want to see a repeat of the past with too much left to too few. I would give up pick 3 but not keen on giving up pick 15. What to do?


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Good post.
Even though top 5 picks perform well early, they don't usually perform consistently well for a few seasons.
There always is the chance that you take those picks to the draft and you get a good player at 3 but no star and you bomb on pick 15 or vice versa. At least with Kelly you know you have a star.
If our club also new it had a very high chance of securing a FA next season then it also changes a lot what you would give up.

 

[DangerousD]

Hughes would never have thought of it.
The process has to include identifying, drafting and developing the talent.
If it doesn't, then clearing out players for draft picks and then choosing a Lucas, a Bootsma, a Watson, etc. with those picks ... our Carlton would be set back a decade and may be relocating to establish the Tasmanian team.

Im not sure you got my point.

The idea can be right, can be the best way forward and the right way to build a strong list/team but the outcome can be wrong. That doesn't mean you through out the idea because it didn't work for you first time.
Hughes was just an example.

 

[LordLucifer]

Trade Marc Murphy ....... ???








And people give me grief for some of my comments ...... FMD.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Do you think if the Dees actually new how to draft we would still use them in these hypotheticals?

If Hughes had of traded out all the guys SOS had and drafted in duds instead of the guys we have brought in, was the process right or wrong?

Hughes would trade them for late 60's draft picks.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

This possible Kelly trade has left me a bit confused. Confused because lm not sure what l would give up for him. Previously l posted that pick 3 and pick 15-18(Adelaide) might be fair. Now l keep asking myself would l rather go to the draft with those picks or take Kelly?

This situation is a bit like how gws came to having pick 2. They gave up Dom Tyson and pick 9 to get Kelly. Dom Tyson was a pick 3. If Carlton ends up with pick 3 and pick 15(Adelaide) and goes to the draft with those picks it's quite possible we could end with players of similar ability to that Melbourne pair.

Dom Tyson - good solid inside midfielder averaging 25 possessions, 10 contested.
Christian Salem - improving half back, quality disposal, av. 22 possessions.

Many say, in hindsight, Melbourne made the wrong call in giving up pick 2 and that gws made the correct call in giving up, effectively, two top ten picks. Yet we also say we wouldn't give up two top ten picks to get Kelly. It can be quite contradictory(Obviously a lot hinges on what you do with the picks).

Personally l really want to see Carlton build depth in the midfield. Because of this the Kelly trade concerns me on two fronts.
1. We give up the possibility of getting 2 quality players( build depth) for one known elite player.
2. Could rise up ladder before we have created midfield depth, reducing quality of subsequent picks.

One thing that can diminish a players value is the number of seasons he has already played. GWS will have gotten 4 seasons out of Kelly. 4 seasons that Carlton won't get compared to our pick 3 from the draft (note very high draft pick midfielders play and contribute as early as first year). How much does the loss of 3 or 4 years factor in?

With the quality of today's drafting a top 5 pick can almost guarantee you a quality midfielder. You can't expect this player to be as good as Kelly but the gap might not be that much. Then pick 15 gives you another crack at a good player.

I just don't want to see a repeat of the past with too much left to too few. I would give up pick 3 but not keen on giving up pick 15. What to do?


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

If we lose Gibbs and get Adelaide's first rounder (say 15), then I would take the hit in the 2017 draft and get Kelly and Hopper for our first (say 3) and Adelaide's (the 15), and perhaps swap our 2018 second for GWS' 2018 second.

The assessment would be that the top players in the 2017 draft are not that great. We hold onto our 2018 first rounder and have a lower 2018 secound round pick.

Kelly and a Hopper would hit the ground running as it were and would slot straight into our Best 22. Our midfield is no worse if not better with Gibbs leaving and our 2016 and 2017 draftees get more games ... watch out in 2019 ...

And I back SPS, Charlie, Fisher and Cuningham to add more midfield minutes next year, and Pickett and Polson to be best 22 next year too. That's not too bad if the midfield has Murphy, Cripps, Ed, Kelly and Hopper ...