List Mgmt. 2017 Trade & FA Targets Part 2

[BrianSpeaking]

Yes - I agree the Kelly to Saints is the next Ablett to the Gold Coast. A sign of a desperate club trying to maintain relevance - a bit like Kelly to North Melbourne, Boyd to the Bulldogs, Buddy to Sydney and Judd to Carlton.

The funny thing about all those trades is the only one that delivered a premiership was the one with the worst performing player of the lot and where the Doggies were ridiculed for paying so much for such a poorly performing player.

But they got lucky who got lucky and just happened to play his best game on GF day.

Checked his performance this year

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...2=16&type=A&pid1=3918&pid2=4035&fid1=S&fid2=S

Have you checked our list - 6 year contract $1.5m a year plus probably two top 10 draft picks for a single player so you can still finish bottom 8 - seriously

It's not about an instant fix, it's about adding to the list over time, can't be bothered arguing about it. By the way, you won Tattslotto last night but it's only a million instead of the 10 million you were hoping for, so we aren't giving it to you.

 

[BrianSpeaking]

Some epic melts have occurred on this board since Friday.

Some people need to a smidgeon of perspective.

First world problems!

 

[BrianSpeaking]

Everyone looks at the benefits but then don't look at the cost. I posted this on another thread - and this is what worries me about trying to get Kelly.

So since the chances of scoring a gun by the trade are supposed to be so low then if we trade for Kelly we HAVE to give more than ONE pick. If its that stacked we'd have to give up the Hawks pick + our Pick so lets say 2 & 6.

Look at last years draft

Pick 2 Tim Taranto - first season - has played 10 games in what is acknowledged as the best squad in the comp and is averaging 17 possessions. Petrevski - Seton Pick 6 has played 10 games in a pretty reasonable midfield @ 14 possessions.

So now lets say we throw the money at a Rockliff (free agent) and keep the draft picks, then the comparison for our midfield next year is

Kelly (30 possessions a game) - Pick 2 (Hawks) - Pick 6 (Saints) V Rockliff (30 poss)+ Taranto (17) + Petreveski-Seton (14).

Taranto is only getting a game because they have so many injuries, I love the kid, have known him since he was in prep, but it's a fact.
He wasn't even a top 5 talent last year.

 

[BrianSpeaking]

And that just proves my point... all speculation.

FWIW I agree with this and next year first and take one to the draft.

I'm not trading next years first, it's an epic draft. Will see what happens but nice to have choices for once.

 

[Longmembrey]

No. If you pay 95% for 3 yrs, you can pay 1 yr at 100%, then must pay 105% for the following 3yrs or you lose the right to pay 105% altogether for the 3 yrs. (See point (f) )

View attachment 380407

I understand what you mean though, if we didn't get a gun elite recruit, we'd just over pay everyone to get to 105% then go again for an elite gun the following year. Problem is that kinda defeats the purpose of building a war chest

It also rewards mediocrity. ..

 

[plugger66]

He was hyped because he looked like a potential gun though. 16 disposals a game in your first 13 games sounds pretty good to me.

But nothing like Kelly or even Treloar. You cant compare Kelly and Tyson. Anyway the point stands. We can all find examples to back our point of view.

 

[Rors]

Great post, greed is bad, win win is good.
I'm not surprised we've fallen off, a much tougher draw, about to get tougher. We will be fine, although I would sack Searle and Gilbee from the development coaches.

My concerns are that as a team we've had minimal injuries, but the small amount of injuries we've had has exposed how poor our list really is. Armo being out long-term hasnt helped the midfield group, but even when fit, he adds no speed to the mix which we severely lack (although he does help release Jack Steven to do more damage)

God help us if we had a Collingwood-type injury list, we'd be fighting out the spoon with Brisbane at bottom of the ladder.

There are certainly issues with development. There is not one single bloke in the reserves that was drafted in the last 4 years that is putting pressure on any positions in the seniors, & the scarier thing is that no one in the reserves is even dominating games.

We do not need 5 ruckmen on the list too. It's an absolutely ridiculous situation that 4 ruckmen have to play in the 2s. Just absurd

 

[FlyingSledghamer]

Lets be honest Gringo we can find many examples either way to suit our situation. And I don't think we can compare Tyson to Kelly in anyway.

True but to get a good idea. Why pick out 1 trade. Have a look at the top 5 or 6 mids from recent drafts.
2013 - Kelly. Billings. Bont, Sharenberg. Aish.
2014 - Petracca. Brayshaw. Pickett. Cockatoo. Ellis. Weller
2015 - Mills. Oliver. Parish. Hopper. Milera
2016 - McGrath, Taranto, McL, Ainsworth. SPS.

What does that tell us?
Looking at recent history. Theres a very high chance (over 90%) that with say pick 3 or 4 and pick 7 or 8 we get very very good young mids in. Take into account the very top end mids are looking as good or better than recent years.
Kelly good but IMO the alternative is very good too.
And saving the extra cap bonus is not an issue. We'll just keep rolling it over until we get a good opportunity to use it. So we give slightly bigger contracts to Billings and co. Big deal. We'll still be in a great position next year and after that.

 

[BrianSpeaking]

My analysis is that aren't as bad as we look, but we lack one key component, that being line breaking pace. We have a tonne of inside mids, key defenders, key forwards, but no line breakers apart from Steven. Fix that and we are catapaulted into the top four.

 

[sunny3193]

No. We DO have to spend it, we must spend 105% next year or we lose all 3 years worth of 105%. I posted the guidelines here last week

I'm intrigued that, perhaps with the exception of BrianSpeaking, no one has really responded to your curious and perceptive post of a few days ago.
The one where you identified that with their Whitfield drug saga penalty, GWS has no presence in this year's first round.
GWS's business model is built on multiple first rounders (because of their initial AFL concessions, their talent base maturing, their retention of high end talent now being hampered by salary cap constraints, and their need to roll over talent in order to retain their high end).
Failure to have a first round presence is an anathema to them.
Particularly when they have tradeable, excess talent.
You rightly identify their four uncontracted players, Kelly among them, that appear to be on "offer".
The significance of this does not seem to have been understood on this thread.
It places our two clubs in a unique position.
We have multiple first rounders, currently #3 and #7, GWS have none.
(The other holders of multiple first rounders can be discounted: Brisbane, currently with #1 and #14, are on a different development curve and won't trade; while Richmond, currently #15 and #16, have picks of marginal value to GWS).
Even our apparent rival (North), can only currently offer #4 and a future first rounder next year (and given the lesson everyone has learned from Hawthorn's experience, a future pick has marginal currency).
So the question then becomes: what are GWS prepared to trade and what are we prepared to offer?
Whether it be for Kelly alone, or any combination of the players.
And by players, I would not restrict the definition to include only those out of contract.
I have no idea of the outcome (although I have my suspicions), but I do envision us being trade bandits in consecutive years.

Life is good.

Yawkey Way: this is the avenue to build talent you have been seeking, a poor decision by one club and a penalty on another where the benefits of both accrue to a third. (BTW: given your nickname, you've spent time in Maine?)

 

[BrianSpeaking]

I'm intrigued that, perhaps with the exception of BrianSpeaking, no one has really responded to your curious and perceptive post of a few days ago.
The one where you identified that with their Whitfield drug saga penalty, GWS has no presence in this year's first round.
GWS's business model is built on multiple first rounders (because of their initial AFL concessions, their talent base maturing, their retention of high end talent now being hampered by salary cap constraints, and their need to roll over talent in order to retain their high end).
Failure to have a first round presence is an anathema to them.
Particularly when they have tradeable, excess talent.
You rightly identify their four uncontracted players, Kelly among them, that appear to be on "offer".
The significance of this does not seem to have been understood on this thread.
It places our two clubs in a unique position.
We have multiple first rounders, currently #3 and #7, GWS have none.
(The other holders of multiple first rounders can be discounted: Brisbane, currently with #1 and #14, are on a different development curve and won't trade; while Richmond, currently #15 and #16, have picks of marginal value to GWS).
Even our apparent rival (North), can only currently offer #4 and a future first rounder next year (and given the lesson everyone has learned from Hawthorn's experience, a future pick has marginal currency).
So the question then becomes: what are GWS prepared to trade and what are we prepared to offer?
Whether it be for Kelly alone, or any combination of the players.
And by players, I would not restrict the definition to include only those out of contract.
I have no idea of the outcome (although I have my suspicions), but I do envision us being trade bandits in consecutive years.

Life is good.

Yawkey Way: this is the avenue to build talent you have been seeking, a poor decision by one club and a penalty on another where the benefits of both accrue to a third. (BTW: given your nickname, you've spent time in Maine?)

No need for anyone else to post, very well said.

 

[plugger66]

True but to get a good idea. Why pick out 1 trade. Have a look at the top 5 or 6 mids from recent drafts.
2013 - Kelly. Billings. Bont, Sharenberg. Aish.
2014 - Petracca. Brayshaw. Pickett. Cockatoo. Ellis. Weller
2015 - Mills. Oliver. Parish. Hopper. Milera
2016 - McGrath, Taranto, McL, Ainsworth. SPS.

What does that tell us?
Looking at recent history. Theres a very high chance (over 90%) that with say pick 3 or 4 and pick 7 or 8 we get very very good young mids in. Take into account the very top end mids are looking as good or better than recent years.
Kelly good but IMO the alternative is very good too.
And saving the extra cap bonus is not an issue. We'll just keep rolling it over until we get a good opportunity to use it. So we give slightly bigger contracts to Billings and co. Big deal. We'll still be in a great position next year and after that.

A good group but we don't know if we will be successful in picking right. I like a punt but I think the safest punt by far is Kelly over hope.

 

[pebblesofsand]

So your using examples of what other clubs have gone and done? They're not our recruiters and they're not in our development system

So your saying Billings and McCartin are complete duds because of our coaches and development and therefore we should trade multiple first round draft picks to cover up the failures of our system.

Don't think that's a recipe for success - fix the system if that's the problem.

Lets get this straight - I would love to have Kelly but not "AT ANY PRICE". The money we pay him is irrelevant its the draft picks back to GWS that will be the problem.

He was a Pick 2 before he played a game (so that's a 50/50 chance to be any good according to lots here) so given his output and apparently how great he is he's so according to that theory then starting price has to be way more than 2 Top 5 picks. (known star v unknown)

If that's the case then GWS's starting point for Kelly must be - Hawthorns 1st and St Kilda's 1st 2017 + St Kilda 1st 2018.

Would we pay that - hope not!!

Would we look at the same deal sweetened by a GWS 2018 first rounder - possibly - first rounder and a probable starting 22 - definitely

Given our midfield situation if we are going to go after Kelly here's what I'd be looking around this

Kelly AND Hopper for Hawthorns 1st and St Kilda's 1st draft picks for 2017 and St Kilda 1st 2018 (plus change)

And I'd throw this offer in just to see what they say

Kelly, Hopper and Devon Smith for Hawthorns 1st 2017, St Kilda's 1st 2017 and St Kilda 1st 2018 + Billy Longer or Tom Hickey

.

 

[BrianSpeaking]

If anyone thinks we are just going to roll
over and give up two picks they are wrong, especially if Josh says I'm off to the Saints. Let's have a little more faith in our staff and their negotiation skills.
GWS will not have the upper hand by any stretch of the imagination for once! It's also not long until these kids become free agents, look for us to cash in massively around 2019-21.

 

[plugger66]

If anyone thinks we are just going to roll
over and give up two picks they are wrong, especially if Josh says I'm off to the Saints. Let's have a little more faith in our staff and their negotiation skills.
GWS will not have the upper hand by any stretch of the imagination for once!

We wont role over but if he wants to come to us we must make it happen. I think it will end up both picks with something coming back. To me that's fine.

 

[Sainttony]

We wont role over but if he wants to come to us we must make it happen. I think it will end up both picks with something coming back. To me that's fine.

Trouble is I would want a first round pick back and they don't have one. Another player?

 

[plugger66]

Trouble is I would want a first round pick back and they don't have one. Another player?

Its obviously a bit early for any real ideas but I think we will get something back if he wants us. Could be a player. Could be a pick from another club.

 

[FlyingSledghamer]

A good group but we don't know if we will be successful in picking right. I like a punt but I think the safest punt by far is Kelly over hope.

Thats right you cant be 100% sure. But what it shows. That with those picks. Especially the hawks 1 we'd be almost certain at a gun mid.
Over 90% certain. Our pick over 85%. I like those odds as a secondary option.

 

[Saint Watto]

No you don't want to comment further because you realise that the rebuild fully came into effect in 2013.
It doesn't suit your narrative with a number of posters making the point that until 2013 that the club didn't face facts and realise that a full blown rebuild needed to be undertaken. It was not until 2014 that we hit rock bottom. 4 years of drafting and cutting off the deadwood. What also hurt was the losses of players that we had drafted under previous coaches and left because of limited opportunity. So there has been 4 drafts not the 6.

Saint Shags....that's also my recollection of things too.

The club was at least publically,in full denial of the situation.

I remember Michael Nettlefold coming out at some point in 2011 saying we were still a contender...I thought..."WTF"

The list was mentally and physically shot.......but we were still good enough in the back half of the season and make the finals...for one week.

I'm sure someone said the same thing in 2012....where we just treaded water and came 9th.

The Dogs meanwhile were absolutely nailing the draft in 2011/2012(8 of their GF 22 were from these 2 years)

It was only during 2013 that the club realized that we were in deep do do.....at least publically.

I must admit when the 2018/2020 plan came out I cringed.....announcing target dates usually ends up in disappointment.......just ask some coaches and politicians.

But as we were such a train wreck....the club had to announce a plan to the supporters......to show there was a way out of the gigantic mess and give us all hope....that crucial thing called hope.

It's like that old saying...."It's better to aim at something and miss than aim at nothing and achieve it"

Don't under estimate it....it was to be a monumental task with no margin for error.

And as Saint Shags said....there were as the media put it...."The Saints Lost years" where we have no one left from those 2008/9/10 drafts....OUCH...that left a HUGE hole for Richo.

 

[Periphery]

No. If you pay 95% for 3 yrs, you can pay 1 yr at 100%, then must pay 105% for the following 3yrs or you lose the right to pay 105% altogether for the 3 yrs. (See point (f) )

I understand what you mean though, if we didn't get a gun elite recruit, we'd just over pay everyone to get to 105% then go again for an elite gun the following year. Problem is that kinda defeats the purpose of building a war chest

I fully understand how the 105% system works.

No, it doesn't defeat the purpose of building a war chest. It just further extends what we've been doing anyway - which isn't over paying players, but paying their contract in advance, thereby freeing up cap space in future years. All we'd be doing is paying forward contracts to meet the 105% which would free up extra space the following year.

 

[Rors]

I'm intrigued that, perhaps with the exception of BrianSpeaking, no one has really responded to your curious and perceptive post of a few days ago.
The one where you identified that with their Whitfield drug saga penalty, GWS has no presence in this year's first round.
GWS's business model is built on multiple first rounders (because of their initial AFL concessions, their talent base maturing, their retention of high end talent now being hampered by salary cap constraints, and their need to roll over talent in order to retain their high end).
Failure to have a first round presence is an anathema to them.
Particularly when they have tradeable, excess talent.
You rightly identify their four uncontracted players, Kelly among them, that appear to be on "offer".
The significance of this does not seem to have been understood on this thread.
It places our two clubs in a unique position.
We have multiple first rounders, currently #3 and #7, GWS have none.
(The other holders of multiple first rounders can be discounted: Brisbane, currently with #1 and #14, are on a different development curve and won't trade; while Richmond, currently #15 and #16, have picks of marginal value to GWS).
Even our apparent rival (North), can only currently offer #4 and a future first rounder next year (and given the lesson everyone has learned from Hawthorn's experience, a future pick has marginal currency).
So the question then becomes: what are GWS prepared to trade and what are we prepared to offer?
Whether it be for Kelly alone, or any combination of the players.
And by players, I would not restrict the definition to include only those out of contract.
I have no idea of the outcome (although I have my suspicions), but I do envision us being trade bandits in consecutive years.

Life is good.

Yawkey Way: this is the avenue to build talent you have been seeking, a poor decision by one club and a penalty on another where the benefits of both accrue to a third. (BTW: given your nickname, you've spent time in Maine?)

Excellent post. I would add Himmelberg too as he's another who was a 1st round pick & with an extended run in the ones, looks better every week. So there's 2 elite (Kelly & Smith) & 3 potentially elite (Hopper, M Kennedy & HH) that are OOC.

I don't think people understand the magnitude of the hand we hold for this years draft, particularly with GWS first picks being all the way back at pick 25 & 26 (our 2nd for Steele, Pies 2nd for WHE)

 

[VDS66]

Great perspective from Roos just now about the Tyson / pick 2 swap...

- you know you will pass up a good player.

-good clubs look at what they need now and get it done.

- no point judging with hindsight.

- they had Billings at 2 then Kelly, but needed extra players because they only had Jones as a good mid.

 

[plugger66]

Great perspective from Roos just now about the Tyson / pick 2 swap...

- you know you will pass up a good player.

-good clubs look at what they need now and get it done.

- no point judging with hindsight.

- they had Billings at 2 then Kelly, but needed extra players because they only had Jones as a good mid.

I think that is what people are forgetting with Kelly and the huge cost. Yes we only get one player for maybe 2 picks but all of a sudden Steven has a partner in crime. It will help Steven for sure. At the moment gets sat on. If they do that next season then Kelly is free. At least we will always have one runner. At the moment we basically have none.

 

[VDS66]

I think that is what people are forgetting with Kelly and the huge cost. Yes we only get one player for maybe 2 picks but all of a sudden Steven has a partner in crime. It will help Steven for sure. At the moment gets sat on. If they do that next season then Kelly is free. At least we will always have one runner. At the moment we basically have none.

The key take away for me is that part about addressing what you need now.

And that's really what it comes down to.

If the club wants finals next year and contend the year after, then you go with Kelly.

If they want to contend in 2022 then you go the draft.

From where I stand we have a deliberate plan to have all planets aligning.

By 2019, our recent kids will be at a level where they will play consistent good footy. Paddy and Billings 2 more years under their belt, as will Steele.

Our seniors in the 38 to 31 range. Then you add Kelly and a FA...

And if we keep adding talent, we will have some surplus kids with decent trade currency to reinvest into the draft.

 

[Rors]

Great perspective from Roos just now about the Tyson / pick 2 swap...

- you know you will pass up a good player.

-good clubs look at what they need now and get it done.

- no point judging with hindsight.

- they had Billings at 2 then Kelly, but needed extra players because they only had Jones as a good mid.

What people don't see in that trade is that Demons received Tyson, Salem (pick 9) & Jayden Hunt (pick 57)

When you look at the whole trade as a package, Melbourne did quite well.

GWS also did well with their on-trading of the Demons pick 20 they received & moved picks around to nab McCarthy at pick 14 & Lobb at pick 29