List Mgmt. 2018 Trade/FA & Draft Thread Part IV [JP✔️ JPII✔️ Hall✔️ BScott✔️ Tyson✔️ Clarke➡️ Preuss➡️ RedÓg✔️]

[benbanjo]

Is Jonathan O'Rourke worth a punt as a rookie? number 2 pick a few years back, hasn't been able to get the body right for a long time, maybe our medical team can sort him out.

 

[king rising]

Is Jonathan O'Rourke worth a punt as a rookie? number 2 pick a few years back, hasn't been able to get the body right for a long time, maybe our medical team can sort him out.

No.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Is Jonathan O'Rourke worth a punt as a rookie? number 2 pick a few years back, hasn't been able to get the body right for a long time, maybe our medical team can sort him out.

Better than the Bennel suggestion.

 

[GreatBradScott]

Is Jonathan O'Rourke worth a punt as a rookie? number 2 pick a few years back, hasn't been able to get the body right for a long time, maybe our medical team can sort him out.

Can play and his injuries can be overcome, issue is apparently application. I don't think anyone persists, even if there are decent arguments for it.

 

[Moti]

Better than the Bennel suggestion.

No way. Bennell has talent


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[giantroo]

Jordan Roughead will be a Collingwood player in 2019
Sam Landsberger, Herald Sun
32 minutes ago
Subscriber only

JORDAN Roughead will play for Collingwood next year.

The Western Bulldogs premiership ruckman has agreed to join the Magpies and is set to be traded before Wednesday’s 8.30pm deadline.

Roughead, 27, had told the Bulldogs he would explore his free agency options and appeared set to join West Coast after superstar Nic Naitanui underwent a second knee reconstruction.

But the Eagles instead traded in Tom Hickey from St Kilda. Securing Roughead as a free agent would’ve diluted their compensation selection for losing Scott Lycett to Port Adelaide.

Roughead toured North Melbourne’s Arden St headquarters on Friday as the Kangaroos were signing off on the deal to send back-up ruckman Brayden Preuss to Melbourne.

The Kangaroos have also been linked to former Fremantle ruckman Zac Clarke, although Clarke will not be joining the club.

Free agency closed at 5pm Friday but Roughead is still certain to join the Magpies, most likely in exchange for a late draft pick in either this year or next year’s draft.

The Pies hold three selections in the 50s in next month’s draft — No. 51, 56 and 57.

Roughead could bolster Collingwood’s ruck stocks or key defensive stocks as backmen Matthew Scharenberg and Lynden Dunn recover from knee reconstructions.

He will be remembered at the Bulldogs for a critical contested mark from a Sydney kick-out deep in the last quarter during the 2016 Grand Final.

 

[Danni_Benson]

I like benson





The 80s sitcom

I like Benson too ...... my dog

 

[DarkPhoenix]

If we land Hall for a zero Draft Point pick like the one in the 80s, that is an ideal trade for us. Could be a mega steal.

 

[Roo Beauty]

No Zac Clarke. Thank god for that.

 

[Moti]

Looks like Zurhaar is our next in line after Maj


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gotta_Bea_Hero]

Well, we got basically nothing for Clarke, Preuss and pick 11 in terms of bidding points in the pursuit of Polec, Tyson and Pittard. I don't think we were aggressive enough given Port didn't want Pittard and Melbourne didn't want Tyson and they wanted Preuss badly.

We should of traded 11 for something like 20 & 22, given 20 to Port for Polec which is around the ballpark for points value (they were prepared to give us a 3rd rounder back from 11).

Trade 22 (845) to GWS for 25(756) and 52(246), we get an extra 152 points for GWS moving their 2nd round pick up a few spots, but we split the pick, 25 = 756 points.

We got 61 for Clarke(135), was way too low for someone going to be in their best 22 next year, should have been something like Clarke + 68(59) +58(170) for Pick 40(429), makes Clarke effectively 229 points, end of 3rd round, pick 54 in value.

Preuss is contracted for 2 more years, going to be best 22 for Melbourne next year, offered a 4x$500k. He should have been traded for pick 36(502) points, which is a near end of 2nd round pick.

Tyson should have been a separate deal, they don't want Tyson, stopped playing him and he is clogging up their TPP, should have given 52(246) for him.

Port don't want Pittard, barely gave him a game, he is clogging their TPP, trade future 4th round pick to PA for Pittard (they need points next year).

Give 86 to GC for Hall.

We go into the draft with 25(756), 31(606), 36(502), 40(429), 42(395) or total of 2688.

We lost a lot of value on our trades by combining trades with players the opposition wanted with players they didn't want and we paid way over what we would have for individual trades. If we were as aggressive as say Bell at Freo, we would have got this type of result. In pretty much every trade we paid overs for players the opposition didn't want and took unders for our players that they wanted. It has left us short of where we should have been imo.

You need to get a job with the club. I want you as our list manager !!!

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Well, we got basically nothing for Clarke, Preuss and pick 11 in terms of bidding points in the pursuit of Polec, Tyson and Pittard. I don't think we were aggressive enough given Port didn't want Pittard and Melbourne didn't want Tyson and they wanted Preuss badly.

We should of traded 11 for something like 20 & 22, given 20 to Port for Polec which is around the ballpark for points value (they were prepared to give us a 3rd rounder back from 11).

Trade 22 (845) to GWS for 25(756) and 52(246), we get an extra 152 points for GWS moving their 2nd round pick up a few spots, but we split the pick, 25 = 756 points.

We got 61 for Clarke(135), was way too low for someone going to be in their best 22 next year, should have been something like Clarke + 68(59) +58(170) for Pick 40(429), makes Clarke effectively 229 points, end of 3rd round, pick 54 in value.

Preuss is contracted for 2 more years, going to be best 22 for Melbourne next year, offered a 4x$500k. He should have been traded for pick 36(502) points, which is a near end of 2nd round pick.

Tyson should have been a separate deal, they don't want Tyson, stopped playing him and he is clogging up their TPP, should have given 52(246) for him.

Port don't want Pittard, barely gave him a game, he is clogging their TPP, trade future 4th round pick to PA for Pittard (they need points next year).

Give 86 to GC for Hall.

We go into the draft with 25(756), 31(606), 36(502), 40(429), 42(395) or total of 2688.

We lost a lot of value on our trades by combining trades with players the opposition wanted with players they didn't want and we paid way over what we would have for individual trades. If we were as aggressive as say Bell at Freo, we would have got this type of result. In pretty much every trade we paid overs for players the opposition didn't want and took unders for our players that they wanted. It has left us short of where we should have been imo.

I love Belly but so far he has postured a lot but not achieved anything Freo need. Let's wait and see if bad cop is great for results.

 

[Jai Hockey]

Ceglar worth a look to replace Pruess? Could help Ben brown up fwd, Ziebell,wood & Ceglar all together in the states.

 

[giantroo]

The AFL’s new starting positions could lead to the resurrection of the wingman

JON RALPH, Herald Sun
October 13, 2018 10:53am

DOUG Hawkins vividly remembers his famous battles on the wing with Robert DiPierdomenico.

As Footscray great Hawkins said, he never knew what “Dipper” was going to do because the Hawks star had no idea himself.

“I loved it … I love those one-on-one contests, the last survivor, whoever is fittest and best on the day — Robbie Flower, Ricky Barham, Darren Millane, Dipper — you were in a contest every week,” he said.


It might be a touch premature to believe one of the results of Thursday’s AFL rule changes will be the resurrection of the wingman.

But for a club such as North Melbourne, which just secured Jared Polec and missed Andrew Gaff by an inch, it is a positive sign that could have been a game changer.

The new 6-6-6 starting positions at bounces, that push players back inside 50m, will mean that the wingmen have acres of room in which to move either side of the centre square.

Jared Polec was Port Adelaide’s best wingman last season. Picture: Getty Images

They can charge into the centre square to shark a ruckman’s tap, bolt back into defence as the only extra man dropping behind the ball, or fight with their opponent for a quick kick that bounces into space over their heads.

The value of a ball-winning wingman who has the smarts to assess the situation has never been more important in a game where space is hard to find and congestion is king.

Gaff was ranked No. 1 in disposals, contested and uncontested possessions and score involvements this year as a pure wingman. Polec was fifth in disposals, second in contested possessions, third in metres gained and sixth in score involvements.

In other words, there has never been a better time for Polec to arrive at a North Melbourne midfield bolstered by the arrival of himself, Aaron Hall, Dom Tyson and with Luke Davies-Uniacke playing a bigger role.

The AFL’s best wingmen this year, by Champion Data’s official player rankings, were Lachie Hunter (Western Bulldogs), Paul Seedsman (Adelaide), Gaff, Polec, Tom Phillips (Collingwood), Brett Deledio (Greater Western Sydney) and Isaac Smith (Hawthorn)

If Hawthorn could land Tom Scully to play on the other wing, Alastair Clarkson would again be ahead of AFL trends.

Hawkins can’t wait to see if the rule tweaks bring a meaningful change — or just more unintended consequences.

“People went to the footy to watch Peter Knights and Vander (Paul Vander Haar),” he said. “They went to see Dougie versus Dipper on a wing — they go to the footy to see those contests.”

DiPierdomenico hoped the wingman could again become a more attacking player.

“Unfortunately for the wingman he has been a more defensive player for many years,” he said.

“They have had to go back a lot more than in the past … so does the wingman now attack the centre square and run in and grab the ball or run to the back of the pack?

“Jared Polec has some pace, he is strong enough to get in and win it, the ruckman could punch it to a prearranged place for him to run on to.

“At least this rule gives ruckmen the opportunity to be more involved.”


NO. 1 RATED WINGMAN IN 2018
Adelaide

Paul Seedsman — Elite

Brisbane Lions

Tom Cutler — Above Average

Carlton

Sam Kerridge — Average

Collingwood

Tom Phillips — Above Average

Essendon

David Zaharakis — Above Average

Fremantle

Bradley Hill — Average

Geelong

Jordan Cunico — Below Average

Gold Coast

Lachie Weller — Above Average

GWS

Brett Deledio — Above Average

Hawthorn

Isaac Smith — Above Average

Melbourne

Dom Tyson — Above Average

North Melbourne

Trent Dumont — Above Average

Port Adelaide

Jared Polec — Above Average

Richmond

Shaun Grigg — Above Average

St Kilda

Jack Sinclair — Above Average

Sydney

Oliver Florent — Average

West Coast

Andrew Gaff — Elite

Western Bulldogs

Lachie Hunter — Elite

 

[RobZombie]

Is Jonathan O'Rourke worth a punt as a rookie? number 2 pick a few years back, hasn't been able to get the body right for a long time, maybe our medical team can sort him out.

 

[Egga]

Well, we got basically nothing for Clarke, Preuss and pick 11 in terms of bidding points in the pursuit of Polec, Tyson and Pittard. I don't think we were aggressive enough given Port didn't want Pittard and Melbourne didn't want Tyson and they wanted Preuss badly.

We should of traded 11 for something like 20 & 22, given 20 to Port for Polec which is around the ballpark for points value (they were prepared to give us a 3rd rounder back from 11).

Trade 22 (845) to GWS for 25(756) and 52(246), we get an extra 152 points for GWS moving their 2nd round pick up a few spots, but we split the pick, 25 = 756 points.

We got 61 for Clarke(135), was way too low for someone going to be in their best 22 next year, should have been something like Clarke + 68(59) +58(170) for Pick 40(429), makes Clarke effectively 229 points, end of 3rd round, pick 54 in value.

Preuss is contracted for 2 more years, going to be best 22 for Melbourne next year, offered a 4x$500k. He should have been traded for pick 36(502) points, which is a near end of 2nd round pick.

Tyson should have been a separate deal, they don't want Tyson, stopped playing him and he is clogging up their TPP, should have given 52(246) for him.

Port don't want Pittard, barely gave him a game, he is clogging their TPP, trade future 4th round pick to PA for Pittard (they need points next year).

Give 86 to GC for Hall.

We go into the draft with 25(756), 31(606), 36(502), 40(429), 42(395) or total of 2688.

We lost a lot of value on our trades by combining trades with players the opposition wanted with players they didn't want and we paid way over what we would have for individual trades. If we were as aggressive as say Bell at Freo, we would have got this type of result. In pretty much every trade we paid overs for players the opposition didn't want and took unders for our players that they wanted. It has left us short of where we should have been imo.

That's a great result. It means we go into the draft with at least 800 points more than we need. So, in all likelihood, we could use those left over third round picks (40 and 42) to nab some value. We wont get any stars with those picks, so perhaps someone who fills a need... perhaps someone with upside who we believe can improve our run off half back, or can improve our clearances.

 

[tales129]

JON RALPH, Herald Sun
October 13, 2018 10:53am

Jared Polec was Port Adelaide’s best wingman last season.

NO. 1 RATED WINGMAN IN 2018

Melbourne

Dom Tyson — Above Average

North Melbourne

Trent Dumont — Above Average

Jon Ralph with an absolute slow news day article - interesting to see we’ve jagged statistically the best two “wingman” from other clubs lel

 

[see see]

Sam Kerridge — Average

Sadly, other than kicking six against us, attaining this rating represents the pinnacle of our man Sammy's career.

 

[Firestarter]

That's a great result. It means we go into the draft with at least 800 points more than we need. So, in all likelihood, we could use those left over third round picks (40 and 42) to nab some value. We wont get any stars with those picks, so perhaps someone who fills a need... perhaps someone with upside who we believe can improve our run off half back, or can improve our clearances.

To be fair we got Ben Brown with a pick around that range. (And... wow. He had short hair once upon a time.)

 

[kaboom kid]

Looks like Zurhaar is our next in line after Maj


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Durds? Benny Mac?

 

[Waynesworld]

187 turns into pick 57 (182 points).

We wont delist anyone for 58 points, we will just go into deficit and it will discount our future pick (if he gets a 2nd round bid it will drop the value of our 2nd round pick, 3rd round bid our third round pick, etc).

We wouldn't want to have our first round pick diluted. In theory, if GC bid pick 19 (1st round) for him and we needed 751 points to match we could trade out pick 68 plus our 2019 2nd and/or 3rd round pick to get the 569 extra points this year. We wouldn't need the extra list spot if we keep it to 4 picks during the bidding process.

As long as Scott doesn't go in the first round we can just go into deficit for his entire amount, since we traded out our future 4th round pick we could go into deficit by around 1700 points, which isn't going to happen. The amount you can go into deficit is reduced if you trade out future picks, we only traded out a 4th round pick so far and that has little value, 19 points.

As long as Thomas doesn't attract a top 5 bid and Scott doesn't get a 1st round bid, we can pretty much match any other bid on Thomas and we can let the deficit come from next year after the first round.

We would need all of our current picks, including 68, to match a pick 5 bid. We are up shit creek if he goes higher than 5. We would have to try and trade our 2019 2nd and 3rd round picks.

Worst case scenario Thomas goes top 4 and Scott gets a first round bid, we would likely lose Scott and would have to sell the farm re future picks to get Thomas. We left ourselves very thin on points.

I assume we are going to give GC pick 68 to GC for Hall.

With a bit of luck, Thomas will get something like a pick 15 bid (1,112/889) bid and Scott 30 (629/432). 31 & 42 used on Thomas and we get 63 back (112). Picks 48 & 58 used on Scott and we get pick 70 back (39 points). We are left with picks 63 and 70 and 2 spots left. I assume we would attempt to take the ex Freo Clarke as a ruck backup. We theoretically do not need to fill the last two spots with senior players, we can take a full allotment of rookies instead.

If TT goes top 5, if this is such a strong draft would we consider taking someone else rather than matching?

 

[DarkPhoenix]

If TT goes top 5, if this is such a strong draft would we consider taking someone else rather than matching?

We don't have a first pick anyway.

So it's more do we match "overs" on TT or take a couple of speculative picks post 30.

 

[dus]

If TT goes top 5, if this is such a strong draft would we consider taking someone else rather than matching?

I’d take him at 5.

 

[Tas]

If TT goes top 5, if this is such a strong draft would we consider taking someone else rather than matching?

I would doubt that. Think we will take him regardless what is bid on him.

 

[Only Forwards]

We have to take him wherever he is bid.

We also need it to be in the first round.

Otherwise it creates a hurdle in the inevitable throw two firsts for Kelly thing that's going to happen next year.