Traded 2018 Live Trade: Carlton trade #4 (2019) to Adelaide for #19 (2018) and #9 (2019)

[Monkey King]

Would you put the same percentage on Walsh as you would Philp, as in, as a percentage what percent chance would you give Walsh to reach his potential?

Would you put the same percentage on any freshly drafted pick 20 compared to a pick one who just completed one of the best debut seasons in recent memory? What an odd question. And how does it relate to other recruiters being interested in Philp in the range he went?

 

[Jeremias]

Please point to where I stated SOS would have taken Stoker over Walsh. I stated that it's BS if anyone still actually believes SOS would have taken Stoker in "Top 6". It's more likely a throwaway line to justify the trade. But, great conversation again. You really seem to know how to inspire a great discussion.

You should be a Mod.

This is what you said, in response to Stocker being rated inside the top 6;

“It means SOS would have taken him over Walsh, Luko, Rankin, Rozee and the King twins.”

Take a breathe, read the post again, and understand where you’ve made a mistake.

Because what has been said and written is completely different to how you have interpreted it.

Perhaps you meant “or” rather than “and”?

You can also drop the aggression and condescending comments. Do that regardless of whether you realize the mistake you’re making.

 

[La Dispute]

It's more likely a throwaway line to justify the trade.

It’s a complete throwaway line and possibly the oldest cliche in the post-draft recruiters scriptbook, which is why it is completely mindboggling the lengths some go to deconstruct the trade and piece together an order of prospects.

There was nothing validating about the statement though. It was said very soon after Stocker had been drafted, highlighting the collective excitement of the recruiting team and reinforcing how highly they rated him.

 

[WilloTree]

It’s a complete throwaway line and possibly the oldest cliche in the post-draft recruiters scriptbook, which is why it is completely mindboggling the lengths some go to deconstruct the trade and piece together an order of prospects.

There was nothing validating about the statement though. It was said very soon after Stocker had been drafted, highlighting the collective excitement of the recruiting team and reinforcing how highly they rated him.

Yes, it certainly seems that way. Probably said in the excitement of the trade rather than something to be taken literally.

 

[WilloTree]

You can also drop the aggression and condescending comments

I was replying to you calling me "Pathetic". Anyway, I think we're done here. You're playing the man and not contributing to the discussion.

 

[Jeremias]

I was replying to you calling me "Pathetic". Anyway, I think we're done here. You're playing the man and not contributing to the discussion.

I never called you pathetic. The response to being alerted to an error certainly was.

All good - hopefully you can now see where you misunderstood the discussion.

 

[briztoon]

You can't tell the difference between listing a players strengths and weaknesses and listing nothing?

Not sure if you are just being intentionally dense, may god have mercy on your soul if you are serious.

No one was listing strengths and weaknesses.

Posters have been discussing why they believe the Carlton’s picks were reaches or carry extenuating risks.

But hey, keep throwing the insults. At least I’m not trying to drag the discussion down.

 

[Skull Face]

from my PoV

McAsey - good kpp prospect
2020 first


Stocker - i thought he was being over-rated as a 15-25 prospect let alone 6th, he might be an ok player for 10 years imo
Philp - i think he was taken purely based on endurance and clearance numbers, the rest of his game is low quality, disposal, decision making, team work ect
Kemp - injured ACL which scared clubs off, could be a star, has all the tools, but injuries have ruined more than 1 career.

i think a lot is riding on Kemps shoulders(and knee) as to whether Carlton can even out the trade imo.

No one was listing strengths and weaknesses.

Posters have been discussing why they believe the Carlton’s picks were reaches or carry extenuating risks.

But hey, keep throwing the insults. At least I’m not trying to drag the discussion down.

You are a glorified troll, enjoy ignore.

 

[briztoon]

Would you put the same percentage on any freshly drafted pick 20 compared to a pick one who just completed one of the best debut seasons in recent memory? What an odd question. And how does it relate to other recruiters being interested in Philp in the range he went?

Come on. I don’t really have to explain things, or are you deliberately ignoring the line of discussion.

You highlighted one section of a post of mine about whether Kemp can realise his potential (the exact same discussion that was had a year before about RCD).

And you said that question can be asked of all draftees.

Fair point.

But not all draftees carry the same perceived level of risk or questions as to whether they reach their potential.

When I mentioned Walsh and Philp as two examples, I was keeping the discussion Carlton based, and using two players with very different perceptions of whether they would make it or not, from when they were drafted.

Did you deliberately avoid answering the obvious leading question?

Not all draftees carry the same perceived risk of whether they make it or not.

The point Davo was originally making, which is the line of discussion I’ve been following the whole time, is that there’s a pretty common view amongst draft watchers that Stocker and Philp were drafted ahead of their predraft perceived ranges.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Carlton is not the only team to have done this. Certainly the further in to the draft you go, the wider the variance we see in draft boards and rankings.

Stocker I’m willing to give a pass on, as after Duursma, as the talent really did appear to fall away, barring one or two players who went after. If only SOS hadn’t have made that “we rated him at 6 on our board” comment.

But the Philp selection. He really went a dozen picks ahead of where what was considered The beginning of his range. There was some significant talent still left on board at that pick.

I genuinely question whether there would have been a team before Geelong or Sydney that would have picked Philp ahead of the players they actually drafted.

 

[PostPaolo]

Come on. I don’t really have to explain things, or are you deliberately ignoring the line of discussion.

You highlighted one section of a post of mine about whether Kemp can realise his potential (the exact same discussion that was had a year before about RCD).

And you said that question can be asked of all draftees.

Fair point.

But not all draftees carry the same perceived level of risk or questions as to whether they reach their potential.

When I mentioned Walsh and Philp as two examples, I was keeping the discussion Carlton based, and using two players with very different perceptions of whether they would make it or not, from when they were drafted.

Did you deliberately avoid answering the obvious leading question?

Not all draftees carry the same perceived risk of whether they make it or not.

The point Davo was originally making, which is the line of discussion I’ve been following the whole time, is that there’s a pretty common view amongst draft watchers that Stocker and Philp were drafted ahead of their predraft perceived ranges.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Carlton is not the only team to have done this. Certainly the further in to the draft you go, the wider the variance we see in draft boards and rankings.

Stocker I’m willing to give a pass on, as after Duursma, as the talent really did appear to fall away, barring one or two players who went after. If only SOS hadn’t have made that “we rated him at 6 on our board” comment.

But the Philp selection. He really went a dozen picks ahead of where what was considered The beginning of his range. There was some significant talent still left on board at that pick.

I genuinely question whether there would have been a team before Geelong or Sydney that would have picked Philp ahead of the players they actually drafted.

Its worthy discussion when evaluating the drafting process is club's 'reaching' for players, now we're in the live trading era as well. If Philp's range was somewhere in the mid 30s and beyond it begs the question why we didn't trade down to enhance our draft capital in 2020's draft or even 2019.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

We traded 4 (Ash) and 55 (Ruscoe, a pick we couldn’t use) for 19 (Stocker), 17 (Kemp) and 21 (Philip). Perhaps substitute Ash for Stephens as that is who we most likely would’ve taken.

From a Carlton perspective I’m extremely happy with that. Kemp himself is equal with the top 5 talent wise, hopefully Russell gets him right as he, Cripps and Setterfield feeding our smaller brigade could become lethal in time.

Couldn’t care less what Adelaide did with their picks, that is not a factor in if we feel we’ve won the trade or not, I’m sure they feel the same.

FWIW McAsey seems safe as houses to become an A grade KPD, and with any luck GWS will have a grand final hangover and give them a strong pick around 8-15. You couldn’t complain.

 

[Monkey King]

You highlighted one section of a post of mine about whether Kemp can realise his potential (the exact same discussion that was had a year before about RCD) … And you said that question can be asked of all draftees … Fair point … But not all draftees carry the same perceived level of risk or questions as to whether they reach their potential … When I mentioned Walsh and Philp as two examples, I was keeping the discussion Carlton based ...

But the Philp selection. He really went a dozen picks ahead of where what was considered The beginning of his range.

The discussion around Kemp's potential was never "the exact same discussion" as RCD's. You're just making that up. ACL aside, there are no questions about Kemp's ability to realise his potential that wouldn't be asked of McAsey? Why would one be "nothing to write about" in regards to potential, but the other be compared to RCD? This is not genuine.

A players range isn't set by BF big boards, it's determined by recruiters. Twomey reported direct conversations with a number of recruiters who confirmed Philp wasn't going to last long after he was taken; he was emphatic about it. So you can repeat this point ad nauseum, but I reject it's accuracy.

 

[briztoon]

The discussion around Kemp's potential was never "the exact same discussion" as RCD's. You're just making that up. ACL aside, there are no questions about Kemp's ability to realise his potential that wouldn't be asked of McAsey? Why would one be "nothing to write about" in regards to potential, but the other be compared to RCD? This is not genuine.

A players range isn't set by BF big boards, it's determined by recruiters. Twomey reported direct conversations with a number of recruiters who confirmed Philp wasn't going to last long after he was taken; he was emphatic about it. So you can repeat this point ad nauseum, but I reject it's accuracy.

I’m not making it up. Twomey actually mentioned it. So did Lystics AFL podcast.

The comparison between the two was that both players showed absolute elite play and ability for a short period. And they were both compared to Bontempelli in the discussion.

Kemp at the U18 Champs, RCD in the TAC cup finals. But neither player showed they could perform at such a level consistently. Unlike players such as Rowell or Walsh.

So both players showed elite characteristics, but were largely being drafted on potential as they had not shown they could compete at such a level consistently over a season.

Last year, the exact same discussion was had about RCD, comparing and contrasting him to Bontempelli.

So, no I’m not making it up.


As for Twomey reporting on what recruiters said. What exactly defines “not long after”?

It’s been reported Richmond actually didn’t have any interest in Philp. Nor did Brisbane or Port.

Did Adelaide?

Geelong were more interested in Will Gould, and once Sydney jumped up to get Gould, Geelong traded out.

It’s possible Adelaide, Geelong or Sydney may have selected Philp had he still been on board, but we’ll never know.


Twomey put out that article about clubs throwing out bluffs and misdirection to try and secure the player/s they were after, and other clubs moving up to get a player they wanted. Or clubs moving back and getting extra draft assets.

More come out after Twomey’s article.

Seems Carlton may have fell for a bluff.

From what’s come to light, Carlton could have kept the first pick of night two, and still have drafted Philp.

They probably could have moved back further, as Brisbane was locked in on Robertson, Port locked in on Dylan Williams, Adelaide wanted one of Robertson or Schoenberg with their first pick, and were always expected to go for a tall with their other early second round pick.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I’m not making it up. Twomey actually mentioned it. So did Lystics AFL podcast.

The comparison between the two was that both players showed absolute elite play and ability for a short period. And they were both compared to Bontempelli in the discussion.

Kemp at the U18 Champs, RCD in the TAC cup finals. But neither player showed they could perform at such a level consistently. Unlike players such as Rowell or Walsh.

So both players showed elite characteristics, but were largely being drafted on potential as they had not shown they could compete at such a level consistently over a season.

Last year, the exact same discussion was had about RCD, comparing and contrasting him to Bontempelli.

So, no I’m not making it up.


As for Twomey reporting on what recruiters said. What exactly defines “not long after”?

It’s been reported Richmond actually didn’t have any interest in Philp. Nor did Brisbane or Port.

Did Adelaide?

Geelong were more interested in Will Gould, and once Sydney jumped up to get Gould, Geelong traded out.

It’s possible Adelaide, Geelong or Sydney may have selected Philp had he still been on board, but we’ll never know.


Twomey put out that article about clubs throwing out bluffs and misdirection to try and secure the player/s they were after, and other clubs moving up to get a player they wanted. Or clubs moving back and getting extra draft assets.

More come out after Twomey’s article.

Seems Carlton may have fell for a bluff.

From what’s come to light, Carlton could have kept the first pick of night two, and still have drafted Philp.

They probably could have moved back further, as Brisbane was locked in on Robertson, Port locked in on Dylan Williams, Adelaide wanted one of Robertson or Schoenberg with their first pick, and were always expected to go for a tall with their other early second pick.

Do you know what we gave up to upgrade the pick for Philp?

 

[briztoon]

Do you know what we gave up to upgrade the pick for Philp?

Something you didn’t have to.

In all seriousness, you gave up pick 22 and pick 55.

But you also gave up the chance to accrue future draft assets.

You could have stayed at pick 22, and on night two, traded it to Brisbane for a future second round pick to move back one spot. Which is what Port did.

Twomey, and Matt Balmer on Fox Footy, both reported teams were offering Port future first round picks for pick 22. Including Gold Coast offering 2020 PP pick 11.

Port were locked in on Dylan Williams, and wanted to get him before a bid on Jackson Mead came, so weren’t willing to move back far. That’s why they took Brisbane’s offer.

If Carlton wasn’t locked in on Philp, they could have traded 22 to Gold Coast for that 2020 pick 11, and kept pick 55 to draft a kid late.

Or you could have traded pick 55 for a future 4th round pick. As that what clubs were doing late in the draft for picks in the 50’s.

Pick 55 would have moved up 3 or 4 picks after Port and Hawthorn matched the bids on their FS kids. There were a couple of Sandringham mids who went around that range.


If you’re genuinely interested in the draft, and pick trading, I suggest listening to the Lystics AFL podcast, as they have some good discussion on the value of selecting players, and moving up or back in the draft, and value of picks, etc.

 

[La Dispute]

Something you didn’t have to.

In all seriousness, you gave up pick 22 and pick 55.

But you also gave up the chance to accrue future draft assets.

You could have stayed at pick 22, and on night two, traded it to Brisbane for a future second round pick to move back one spot. Which is what Port did.

Twomey, and Matt Balmer on Fox Footy, both reported teams were offering Port future first round picks for pick 22. Including Gold Coast offering 2020 PP pick 11.

Port were locked in on Dylan Williams, and wanted to get him before a bid on Jackson Mead came, so weren’t willing to move back far. That’s why they took Brisbane’s offer.

If Carlton wasn’t locked in on Philp, they could have traded 22 to Gold Coast for that 2020 pick 11, and kept pick 55 to draft a kid late.

Or you could have traded pick 55 for a future 4th round pick. As that what clubs were doing late in the draft for picks in the 50’s.

Pick 55 would have moved up 3 or 4 picks after Port and Hawthorn matched the bids on their FS kids. There were a couple of Sandringham mids who went around that range.


If you’re genuinely interested in the draft, and pick trading, I suggest listening to the Lystics AFL podcast, as they have some good discussion on the value of selecting players, and moving up or back in the draft, and value of picks, etc.

This a good post, but it still doesn’t really account for how highly we rated Philp and trading 22 for future 11 seems good in theory, but that Pick is likely to be pushed back due to academy bids and at that point it’s far more beneficial to get 12 months of development into a player.

The problem with players like Philp going early is there is there is this wholesale assumption he wasn’t rated by any recruiters in the top 25 if he wasn’t included in any phantom drafts.

I see Will Day and Miles Bergman as big reaches, but because they were included in these 1st round projections, even as back end 1st rounders, they are given far more grace. I personally wouldn’t have taken either that early while C. Stephens and Kemp were still on the board.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Something you didn’t have to.

In all seriousness, you gave up pick 22 and pick 55.

But you also gave up the chance to accrue future draft assets.

You could have stayed at pick 22, and on night two, traded it to Brisbane for a future second round pick to move back one spot. Which is what Port did.

Twomey, and Matt Balmer on Fox Footy, both reported teams were offering Port future first round picks for pick 22. Including Gold Coast offering 2020 PP pick 11.

Port were locked in on Dylan Williams, and wanted to get him before a bid on Jackson Mead came, so weren’t willing to move back far. That’s why they took Brisbane’s offer.

If Carlton wasn’t locked in on Philp, they could have traded 22 to Gold Coast for that 2020 pick 11, and kept pick 55 to draft a kid late.

Or you could have traded pick 55 for a future 4th round pick. As that what clubs were doing late in the draft for picks in the 50’s.

Pick 55 would have moved up 3 or 4 picks after Port and Hawthorn matched the bids on their FS kids. There were a couple of Sandringham mids who went around that range.


If you’re genuinely interested in the draft, and pick trading, I suggest listening to the Lystics AFL podcast, as they have some good discussion on the value of selecting players, and moving up or back in the draft, and value of picks, etc.

Yes but we obviously really, really liked Philp and a pick 55 (or more what we could’ve turned that into) to guarantee to get him is a tiny price to pay imo.
what your saying makes sense if we rated guys around that pick similarly but that was obviously not the case. We paid a small price to get what we wanted.

 

[briztoon]

This a good post, but it still doesn’t really account for how highly we rated Philp and trading 22 for future 11 seems good in theory, but that Pick is likely to be pushed back due to academy bids and at that point it’s far more beneficial to get 12 months of development into a player.

The problem with players like Philp going early is there is there is this wholesale assumption he wasn’t rated by any recruiters in the top 25 if he wasn’t included in any phantom drafts.

I see Will Day and Miles Bergman as big reaches, but because they were included in these 1st round projections, even as back end 1st rounders, they are given far more grace. I personally wouldn’t have taken either that early while C. Stephens and Kemp were still on the board.

Again this comes down to how Carlton rates players. And sort of repeats much of what I have said in the Stocker discussion.

I’ll quickly address the GC pick 11, and how far it might be pushed back. At this stage, it might be pushed back 3 places, with potential top 10 bids on Ugle-Hagan, McInness and Campbell. It’s hard to see any other academy or FS kids pushing up that high this far out. Then how far do they slide before a bid? Collingwood and Bulldogs are sure to trade out their first round picks. Sydney will potentially have their first pick before a bid on Campbell.


I don’t really pay attention to Phantom drafts, but rather player rankings.

I like Draft Central, as they clearly see more games and kids live than anyone else.

I also like listening to Lystics AFL. While they don’t rank the kids like other draft watchers, they do discuss player biometrics and game trends in relation to drafting when discussing prospects and the draft pool.

Twomey and Balmer are good to follow, as they include what they’re hearing from clubs, when it comes to their phantom boards.


I agree I would have had Bergman and Will Day further back than where they were drafted, but not by much. Pickett as well. I’m clearly on record as I would have had Philp and Dow much further back.

I believe after pick 11, teams were really drafting for need and BPA (at least according to the draft watchers) often went out the window.

Often teams went for need, and appeared to “reach” because they might already be loaded at the position that the BPA also played.

Melbourne and Bulldogs were never going to draft inside mids. And both had a need for a small forward.

Some teams also can factor in potential future academy or FS prospects when it comes to their drafting strategy.

Hawks and Port are clear examples of this, as they a few midfield prospects last and this year.


As for Carlton’s ranking of Philp (and Stocker), I believe they are guilty of over rating players because they fill a clear need. And then needs bias pushes those players way up a teams board, ahead of players who a clearly more talented.

Again, (and I’m sorry I keep referring to them, but they do offer some very good analysis) the Philp selection was discussed on the Lystics post draft analysis podcast, and they explain how this happens much better than I can.

And this why people are more critical of the Philp selection, than say Will Day or Bergman.

Both Day and Bergman were viewed as potential 15 to 25 talents. They were seen as falling somewhere in that third tier of players between pick 12 and 30.

Philp (and Dow) was seen as belonging to the fourth tier of players

Finally, I’m not picking on Carlton. It’s just this discussion is already here, and it’s the type of discussion I enjoy.

My own team isn’t exempt from this type of discussion. I was highly critical of our 2017 draft, when we selected Brandon Starcevich at pick 18. Especially with Oscar Allen still on board. Nothing I’ve seen since has changed my mind.

 

[briztoon]

Yes but we obviously really, really liked Philp and a pick 55 (or more what we could’ve turned that into) to guarantee to get him is a tiny price to pay imo.
what your saying makes sense if we rated guys around that pick similarly but that was obviously not the case. We paid a small price to get what we wanted.

I wonder, and this is not a direct response to your post, would you trade Sam Philp and your 2020 first round pick for Ollie Wines?

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I wonder, and this is not a direct response to your post, would you trade Sam Philp and your 2020 first round pick for Ollie Wines?

Tough one. We could become really unbalanced with Wines in our midfield group alongside Cripps. Stocker, Dow, Kennedy and SPS are other potential mids on our list who don’t have great tanks either.
On talent I would for sure.

 

[Monkey King]

The comparison between the two was that both players showed absolute elite play and ability for a short period.

Last year, the exact same discussion was had about RCD, comparing and contrasting him to Bontempelli.

There's a reason RCD went at pick 20 and Bont went at 4, while Kerr looked top 3 prior to injury. Anyone having the exact same conversation about these three players is just lazy stereotyping. Kerr's ability to reach his potential is no different to McAsey, so bringing it up as a point of difference is just odd.

More come out after Twomey’s article … Seems Carlton may have fell for a bluff.

From what’s come to light, Carlton could have kept the first pick of night two, and still have drafted Philp.

No it didn't mate. Twomey reported his conversations with recruiters came post-draft, no smoke and daggers behind the mirrors. He was left with no doubt Philp went in his actual range. I can't recall exactly, but seemed to me to be indicating early 20's. Which is also around where KM and CD has him.

You do realise it didn't cost Carlton a thing to move up secure the player they wanted right? Like nada.

 

[briztoon]

There's a reason RCD went at pick 20 and Bont went at 4, while Kerr looked top 3 prior to injury. Anyone having the exact same conversation about these three players is just lazy stereotyping. Kerr's ability to reach his potential is no different to McAsey, so bringing it up as a point of difference is just odd.



No it didn't mate. Twomey reported his conversations with recruiters came post-draft, no smoke and daggers behind the mirrors. He was left with no doubt Philp went in his actual range. I can't recall exactly, but seemed to me to be indicating early 20's. Which is also around where KM and CD has him.

You do realise it didn't cost Carlton a thing to move up secure the player they wanted right? Like nada.

Like I said, more came out the day after Twomey’s article.

The Richmond posters were all over it on here at the time.

 

[Monkey King]

Like I said, more came out the day after Twomey’s article.

The Richmond posters were all over it on here at the time.

I'm not talking about the whispers the Tigers were into Philp; that all came earlier. Twomey said it a couple of days after the entire draft was finished, based on conversations with more than one recruiting manager. Sydney at 26 I believe was one.

In only taking 3 picks at the draft, Carlton traded up for no cost. I suspect they'd been offering the dead pick up to every club right up until Port took them up on it. I mean why wouldn't you be trying to offload a useless pick to increase your chance of getting the player you want?

 

[briztoon]

I'm not talking about the whispers the Tigers were into Philp; that all came earlier. Twomey said it a couple of days after the entire draft was finished, based on conversations with more than one recruiting manager. Sydney at 26 I believe was one.

In only taking 3 picks at the draft, Carlton traded up for no cost. I suspect they'd been offering the dead pick up to every club right up until Port took them up on it. I mean why wouldn't you be trying to offload a useless pick to increase your chance of getting the player you want?

My mistake then. I thought we were talking about Carlton trading up from 22 to 20, where Cal said they made the move to get ahead of the Tigers. Then the next day it was reported by Cleary the Tigers had no interest in Philp.

I was discussing that Carlton missed out on getting extra value by not staying at 22, and then followed up with a comment that they may have been bluffed. At which point you quoted me again, saying nah.


In general I believe SOS did well, and he was one of the best recruiters when it came to understanding live trading and extracting value.

But as fans, regardless of team affiliation, we can discuss and critique moves, players, etc.

Twomey, Shifter and Balmer all mentioned Robertson was rated in the top 10 by several teams. Yet he went at 22.

Where a player is drafted isn’t always a good indication of where they may have been rated

We’ve seen there was a wide variance of where teams rated players.

Which is why I do put a bit of stock in AFL Draft Central, Twomey’s and Balmer’s rankings, as they’re usually rating players on talent, rather than being influenced by needs.

 

[slashin_velvet]

My mistake then. I thought we were talking about Carlton trading up from 22 to 20, where Cal said they made the move to get ahead of the Tigers. Then the next day it was reported by Cleary the Tigers had no interest in Philp.

I was discussing that Carlton missed out on getting extra value by not staying at 22, and then followed up with a comment that they may have been bluffed.

One element of the 22 to 20 trade that everyone seems to overlook is that there is a benefit to picking in the first round vs the first pick of the second round.

The AFL future pick rule changes state clubs must take 2 first round selections every 4 years. By turning 22 into 20 by using a pick they weren't going to use, they bought themselves an extra first rounder which frees up options in upcoming years.