List Mgmt. 2017 Trade & FA Targets Part 2

[Rors]

I've said this a few time before. The way I'd hope the offseason goes is that we jag 1 young gun & 1 talented 2nd/3rd yr player with exquisite foot skills. Then take 2 picks in the top 25 to the draft & upgrade Marshall.

Eg:
Kelly/Whitfield
Balic/Tucker

Pick 3 (Hawks pick)
Pick 20 (traded for somehow)
Rookie Upgrade - Rowan Marshall

I know it's not really a necessary position to recruit for at present but I'd be having a close look at Jack Leslie (been keen for a couple of years) as a long term replacement for Nathan Brown at season's end. I know we already have Hugh Goddard, but it could be possible to swing him forward with Paddy. Would love to see good mates Paddy & Hugh rotating between FF & CHF in 2-3yrs time

 

[Yawkey way]

I do agree that we don't quite have the talent yet but I think you're being a bit harsh...
Roo, Steven and Carlisle are not it. Robbo is for sure in AA form and is now in the top 3-4 hbfs in the comp. Ross has surpassed Steven in my eyes, gets as much of the ball and uses it well. If Billings keeps up his form of the last month he is a grade. Acres has games where he plays like Pendles and others where he doesn't. Steele looks like the next Mundy at the rate he's going. We still have list cloggers and about 5 too many bog average ruckmen but we're not Brisbane...

Yep that is pretty much what I said without naming Ross and acres although I would argue that they still have a fair bit to do. Steven is a three time best and fairest, Ross is really stepping up and acres just cameos for the most part he still has along way to go. I really like jimmy Webster and jack newnes as well, they look like complete players who could take it up a notch.

 

[plugger66]

No. No you don't. This is the strain of thought that lead Hawthorn to overpay for JOM. You pay what you think they're worth and not a cent more. If you're paying someone more than they're worth, you're paying someone else less than they're worth.

This idea of just giving Kelly 1.5 and giving GWS both firsts this year is paying overs. Some people will argue it's not but it is. Kelly is worth at most our first this year and next. And maybe 1.2 mil. Any more than that is overs in my eyes. He's not the messiah, he's not the saviour and he's not going to singlehandedly win us a cup with 21 other underpaid scrubs around him.

Didn't you just tell how good some of the players are now. You seem to arguing two different thoughts. We pay want we think he is worth. That's the club not us. If we pay slightly over to get what we want then we do it.

 

[StCicatriz]

No. No you don't. This is the strain of thought that lead Hawthorn to overpay for JOM. You pay what you think they're worth and not a cent more. If you're paying someone more than they're worth, you're paying someone else less than they're worth.

This idea of just giving Kelly 1.5 and giving GWS both firsts this year is paying overs. Some people will argue it's not but it is. Kelly is worth at most our first this year and next. And maybe 1.2 mil. Any more than that is overs in my eyes. He's not the messiah, he's not the saviour and he's not going to singlehandedly win us a cup with 21 other underpaid scrubs around him.

How was JOM a known entity? There was vigorous debate on here and pretty much every form of media as to if he would get back and play football let alone if he'd get back to his best

Cmon

 

[StCicatriz]

I've said this a few time before. The way I'd hope the offseason goes is that we jag 1 young gun & 1 talented 2nd/3rd yr player with exquisite foot skills. Then take 2 picks in the top 25 to the draft & upgrade Marshall.

Eg:
Kelly/Whitfield
Balic/Tucker

Pick 3 (Hawks pick)
Pick 20 (traded for somehow)
Rookie Upgrade - Rowan Marshall

I know it's not really a necessary position to recruit for at present but I'd be having a close look at Jack Leslie (been keen for a couple of years) as a long term replacement for Nathan Brown at season's end. I know we already have Hugh Goddard, but it could be possible to swing him forward with Paddy. Would love to see good mates Paddy & Hugh rotating between FF & CHF in 2-3yrs time

That would be a very good outcome

 

[Crusty Undies]

We have specifically done the work on the TPP to have a bucketload of cash available for this very thing.

As far as giving up 2 first round picks, let's remember that one of these is a
"bonus" at this stage. Yes, it has an element of risk to go all in, but no risk, no reward, and really we know exactly what Kelly is and can be. I never wanted to risk it with JOM and his injuries, but going for Kelly is a very educated risk.

As I mentioned before, this is not just for a short term fix considering his age. He'll help set us up for the next decade.

Let's be bold!

We don't have a bonus pick. Just stop with that please. We have a second pick through beneficial trading but it's not like we got it for free. We still gave up the pick that eventually got Ollie Florent. If we treat it as a "bonus" pick we will lose all the value we've gained from it.

 

[Crusty Undies]

How was JOM a known entity? There was vigorous debate on here and pretty much every form of media as to if he would get back and play football let alone if he'd get back to his best

Cmon

Cmon. You know what I mean and I'm not talking about whether or not he was a known entity. I was talking about a club doing everything in it's power to get a player even if it means paying more than they're worth.

 

[Crusty Undies]

Didn't you just tell how good some of the players are now. You seem to arguing two different thoughts. We pay want we think he is worth. That's the club not us. If we pay slightly over to get what we want then we do it.

Yeah you're right I did. And if we pay Kelly 1.5 a year for 6 years we'll lose half of them cos we won't be able to pay them.

 

[STK2020]

I've said this a few time before. The way I'd hope the offseason goes is that we jag 1 young gun & 1 talented 2nd/3rd yr player with exquisite foot skills. Then take 2 picks in the top 25 to the draft & upgrade Marshall.

Eg:
Kelly/Whitfield
Balic/Tucker

Pick 3 (Hawks pick)
Pick 20 (traded for somehow)
Rookie Upgrade - Rowan Marshall

I know it's not really a necessary position to recruit for at present but I'd be having a close look at Jack Leslie (been keen for a couple of years) as a long term replacement for Nathan Brown at season's end. I know we already have Hugh Goddard, but it could be possible to swing him forward with Paddy. Would love to see good mates Paddy & Hugh rotating between FF & CHF in 2-3yrs time

That would be a good result if we hang onto 1 x 1st rounder . Now the cost .

 

[Yawkey way]

So how does to unknowns help us any better than a potential champion? And why would a potential FA cost us picks. Maybe Martin and Fyfe but I expect both to stay. Most FA are just that, free.

Kelly is or will be a superstar no question in my mind, the problem is you only have so much currency.

I would take Kelly the problem is you can't keep doing it and Kelly alone isn't enough.

Like I said if every restricted free agent is a ridiculous fantasy without giving up picks then it is a case of see above.

Now if we were prepared to make some hard decisions and trade best 22 players or youngsters that opens up some doors. For example longer/hickey, paddy/Bruce. Most people wouldn't make that type of trade so again we don't have the currency.

 

[StCicatriz]

Cmon. You know what I mean and I'm not talking about whether or not he was a known entity. I was talking about a club doing everything in it's power to get a player even if it means paying more than they're worth.

That's not the issue hawthorn had. The issue hawthorn had was that they did it with a player who had very serious knee issues that saw him play what was it 1 game in 2 seasons

They basically ignored all the red flags

Using JOM as an example on why not go for kelly isn't the right example. It's not even in the same ballpark

Swap out JOMs name with kelly and I reckon the narrative would be completely different

 

[Yawkey way]

The biggest issue we have is run and spread through the midfield this extends to defencive running. Sides just cut us up. The other issue we have is ball use.

Kelly addresses all those things and more. If you can get him, you get him and don't look back!

If it's two first rounders you just do it. It's a known entity that is still very young is yet to his peak and had a good 8 years of football left in him

I reckon we would have traded two first rounders for him in his draft year if we could have. That's how much we rate him

Picking up another bloke in the same age bracket as Billings Ross steele etc is very smart as you are building a list in the same age demographic which is key part of building a premiership list. Plus we have kelly whilst Steven roberton and Carlisle are still playing good football

On the flip side if we take two picks to the draft we don't have any guarantee they will end up anywhere near as good as kelly. If what our form is to date the best we can hope for is a fwd in gresham or Billings who have been our best first round selections to date but neither are spending the minutes in the midfield similar to other players who have broken out as mids. Or we get a mid like Ross who took 4 years to show some good form albeit still not as good as kelly

Gresham was good at he championships, I liked him because he found a lot of the ball and took the game on.

We don't play him on the ball enough, billings is was and always will be a forward who can spend some time up the ground. Both will only get better now we have more players like Steele and Stevens to do the heavy lifting.

I would love Kelly but on his own he isn't enough and you can't keep paying two for one prices. My problem is what do we do after Kelly. Restricted free agency is turning into a bust for everyone.

I would still like Rockliff he maybe the exception as brisbanes compo pick would be as good as it gets.

 

[screw the blues]

Kelly is such a talent , that I support using the 2 x 1st Rounders to get him. I am traditionally someone who would always advocate taking the picks to the draft , and I would not of suggested such for Fyfe or Martin. Kelly is younger and hasn't got a banged up body like Fyfe , and as much as I like Martin , Kelly is just a far better fit with what we have. WHATEVER IT TAKES !!

 

[Diehard Saint]

We don't have a bonus pick. Just stop with that please. We have a second pick through beneficial trading but it's not like we got it for free. We still gave up the pick that eventually got Ollie Florent. If we treat it as a "bonus" pick we will lose all the value we've gained from it.

I get that. But it was last year's pick, we've used the picks we got back, but last year is now history. To all intents and purposes it is now a bonus pick...and it allows us to be much more proactive with our drafting/ trading this season.
So yes, I do consider it a bonus now.

 

[plugger66]

Yeah you're right I did. And if we pay Kelly 1.5 a year for 6 years we'll lose half of them cos we won't be able to pay them.

Firstly is it fact we would lose these players if we paid that much and is it fact we are going to pay that much or it emotive to make others think you are right. I'm guessing we wont pay that much and we wont lose anyone so lets deal.

 

[STK2020]

I hope our club has done its homework.
I hope somebody in our footy finance department ownes a calculator.

 

[plugger66]

Kelly is or will be a superstar no question in my mind, the problem is you only have so much currency.

I would take Kelly the problem is you can't keep doing it and Kelly alone isn't enough.

Like I said if every restricted free agent is a ridiculous fantasy without giving up picks then it is a case of see above.

Now if we were prepared to make some hard decisions and trade best 22 players or youngsters that opens up some doors. For example longer/hickey, paddy/Bruce. Most people wouldn't make that type of trade so again we don't have the currency.

Why is every FA a ridiculous fantasy without giving up picks? I would suggest most FA will cost nothing and that's why they are called FA.

 

[Diehard Saint]

That's not the issue hawthorn had. The issue hawthorn had was that they did it with a player who had very serious knee issues that saw him play what was it 1 game in 2 seasons

They basically ignored all the red flags

Using JOM as an example on why not go for kelly isn't the right example. It's not even in the same ballpark

Swap out JOMs name with kelly and I reckon the narrative would be completely different

Exactly this.

 

[Diehard Saint]

Kelly is such a talent , that I support using the 2 x 1st Rounders to get him. I am traditionally someone who would always advocate taking the picks to the draft , and I would not of suggested such for Fyfe or Martin. Kelly is younger and hasn't got a banged up body like Fyfe , and as much as I like Martin , Kelly is just a far better fit with what we have. WHATEVER IT TAKES !!

Well, I agreed with you until that last statement...we all know how THAT turned out

 

[Yawkey way]

Why is every FA a ridiculous fantasy without giving up picks? I would suggest most FA will cost nothing and that's why they are called FA.

Yeah that's exactly what I thought based on every deal except Dangerfield.

Then a few persistent posters including ghost broke me down, so apparently unless they are free agents just treat it like any other trade.

Restricted should just read uncontracted.

 

[plugger66]

Yeah that's exactly what I thought based on every deal except Dangerfield.

Then a few persistent posters including ghost broke me down, so apparently unless they are free agents just treat it like any other trade.

Restricted should just read uncontracted.

Don't know about what was said but 95% of RFA cost nothing. Its actually 100% but I'm allowing for backroom deals getting done so they don't match the offer.

 

[screw the blues]

Well, I agreed with you until that last statement...we all know how THAT turned out

Well I was thinking of a job for dad (ala Scullygate) and being aggressive in the trade and perhaps paying less , rather than suggesting doing a Hawthorn.

 

[Yawkey way]

Don't know about what was said but 95% of RFA cost nothing. Its actually 100% but I'm allowing for backroom deals getting done so they don't match the offer.

This is exactly what I said, but in relation to Fyfe I was repeatedly told Fremantle would match no matter what.

People including ghost said Fremantle weren't a charity and it was a ridiculous fantasy to think we could get him without giving up picks.

So if it applies to him why not every gun RFA, why would say Martin be any different?. Perhaps that's why we gave up the chase?.

 

[Diehard Saint]

Well I was thinking of a job for dad (ala Scullygate) and being aggressive in the trade and perhaps paying less , rather than suggesting doing a Hawthorn.

"Whatever it takes" was the Bombers' slogan a few years back

 

[Yawkey way]

Well I was thinking of a job for dad (ala Scullygate) and being aggressive in the trade and perhaps paying less , rather than suggesting doing a Hawthorn.

I do love a bit of Machiavellian plotting and scheming.