Training 2020 Preseason

[spotthedog1]

My impression at the time was that Adelaide really didn’t want to let him go.
There was a reason for that. And it wasn’t just because he was contracted.

Fair enough. You noted that he was 5th or 6th in line, and has shone now that he's the no 1 small. Very true. But I'd have called that a risk. If you'd told me (reliably) 2 years ago that if we paid pick 12 we'd have had the best small forward in the game, I'd have snapped it up. But we didn't know that at the time. Awesome that he's done what he has. But if he couldn't hack the attention of the best small defender, or didn't adjust to our gameplan, etc...

 

[Dalions]

Fair enough. You noted that he was 5th or 6th in line, and has shone now that he's the no 1 small. Very true. But I'd have called that a risk. If you'd told me (reliably) 2 years ago that if we paid pick 12 we'd have had the best small forward in the game, I'd have snapped it up. But we didn't know that at the time. Awesome that he's done what he has. But if he couldn't hack the attention of the best small defender, or didn't adjust to our gameplan, etc...

Risk v reward.
It’s always a bit of a balancing act.
I personally was happier to pay 12 for Charlie than what we paid for Basti and Bell.
Bundy I thought was about right at the time.
Suck it and See, with Charlie so far we’ve had a win.

 

[bungalow_bill]

Risk v reward.
It’s always a bit of a balancing act.
I personally was happier to pay 12 for Charlie than what we paid for Basti and Bell.
Bundy I thought was about right at the time.
Suck it and See, with Charlie so far we’ve had a win.

We also paid pick 12 + a former pick 7 for Fevola

 

[Dalions]

We also paid pick 12 + a former pick 7 for Fevola

Cost us much more than that, so that one will forever haunt us.
(And Vossy)

 

[Quigley]

Based on performance and previous trades I thought we overpaid slightly for Cameron but not excessively. He ended up being great value but there was certainly enough risk there at the time to think we had overpaid.

On CEY he has stayed in the league because he is a big athletic inside mid who can get a reasonable amount of ball. Do not expect him to be anything other than a replacement level player though. He replenishes some of our depth but I am not expecting him to suddenly jump and become a "good" player at AFL level. He is not a particularly smart player and his skills are on the average side. Bell and Bastinac are two names that have been thrown around in this thread of late and that is where I expect him to end up. He will get games but I think he is a place holder until one of the youngsters takes away the spot from him.

 

[BuntonRules]

OTOH go back to when we passed over him for Redden... Classic melts, Robbo was a forum favourite at the time.

? IIRC it was more we passed on Beams for Redden, and Carlton got Robbo at 40, 1 pick in front of us that took Banfield at 41.

History shows our mistake was probably passing on Rory Sloan who went at 44.

 

[Brett C]

Confirmation bias.

Trained professionals also valued Basti at pick 17. Valued Bell at pick 21. Valued Lisle at pick 29. I can go on. List management involves a lot of guesswork. Funnily enough, if you asked 16 other list managers at the time what Charlie Cameron was worth, you would've got about 16 different opinions. It's not like there is a correct answer.

I disagreed with the club at the time. I thought we overpaid for Charlie. In hindsight, we didn't, but I still maintain that given the unknowns at the time, we paid overs. Other experts (and non experts... cough... Terry Wallace) thought that our pick in the 30s was about right in the first few days of trade period. Then that our pick in the 20s might be a bit overs, but you could just pay it to get the deal done. Then that our pick 18 was maybe in play, and you might agree to that. Then that pick 12 was overs, but maybe if you got something back. I specifically remember both Twomey and Barrett holding opinions of our pick in the 20s being overs. I know neither are list managers, but I'd think that several other list managers likely agreed with them.

Even then, in hindsight, Charlie's delivered more than pick 12 value to the club. That's excellent, and I think everyone on this board agrees with that. But funnily enough, that still doesn't answer all of the questions. If we'd walked away, we might have got him for nothing last off-season. Then we'd have Darcy Fogarty and Charlie Cameron. At the same time, we might not have. Charlie might've re-signed with the Crows, or been pissed at us for not getting the deal done and gone elsewhere.

What if, in a freak accident, Charlie broke his leg in his first offseason with the Lions, and never regained form? Would BigFooty experts then be smarter than the club recruiters? Saying "the club got this right, so you should never disagree with them" is a bit short-sighted.

The only problem is Bastinac wasn’t worth pick 17 and Bell wasn’t worth pick 21 there were a number pick swaps that were part of both trades.

Not sure if you ignored them to further your argument or not.

 

[25 years on]

CC was worth pick 12 then because we needed a good small forward and we had the players who could deliver the ball to him, if we didn’t have the players who could do that he wouldn’t have been worth it. Its all about the fit of the player with the team..

 

[Scubaveg]

Wasn't a trade, picked up as a delisted free agent.

Yeah fair enough. Doesn’t change that it was a ridiculous decision to bring him to the club to start with though.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[jackess]

Yeah fair enough. Doesn’t change that it was a ridiculous decision to bring him to the club to start with though.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Why?

 

[Balony_pony16]

Do lions train anywhere tomorrow? I’m up for holidays

 

[Dalions]

Do lions train anywhere tomorrow? I’m up for holidays

No official training until the 18th.
But a few of the boys have been doing a bit at Coorparoo some mornings.
You Might strike it lucky?

 

[rangatangtang]

Robbo said on his podcast that about 15 boys have been running for weeks

 

[Scubaveg]

Why?

Chronic knee condition. Was never going to stand up and better options on the list at the time.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[jackess]

Chronic knee condition. Was never going to stand up and better options on the list at the time.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Definitely weren't better options. Our list was horrible.

 

[Nunez]

Definitely weren't better options. Our list was horrible.

And he came good in the final few weeks of the year only to suffer another injury and retire. Was unfortunate

 

[Fatcat08]

Confirmation bias.

Trained professionals also valued Basti at pick 17. Valued Bell at pick 21. Valued Lisle at pick 29. I can go on. List management involves a lot of guesswork. Funnily enough, if you asked 16 other list managers at the time what Charlie Cameron was worth, you would've got about 16 different opinions. It's not like there is a correct answer.

I disagreed with the club at the time. I thought we overpaid for Charlie. In hindsight, we didn't, but I still maintain that given the unknowns at the time, we paid overs. Other experts (and non experts... cough... Terry Wallace) thought that our pick in the 30s was about right in the first few days of trade period. Then that our pick in the 20s might be a bit overs, but you could just pay it to get the deal done. Then that our pick 18 was maybe in play, and you might agree to that. Then that pick 12 was overs, but maybe if you got something back. I specifically remember both Twomey and Barrett holding opinions of our pick in the 20s being overs. I know neither are list managers, but I'd think that several other list managers likely agreed with them.

Even then, in hindsight, Charlie's delivered more than pick 12 value to the club. That's excellent, and I think everyone on this board agrees with that. But funnily enough, that still doesn't answer all of the questions. If we'd walked away, we might have got him for nothing last off-season. Then we'd have Darcy Fogarty and Charlie Cameron. At the same time, we might not have. Charlie might've re-signed with the Crows, or been pissed at us for not getting the deal done and gone elsewhere.

What if, in a freak accident, Charlie broke his leg in his first offseason with the Lions, and never regained form? Would BigFooty experts then be smarter than the club recruiters? Saying "the club got this right, so you should never disagree with them" is a bit short-sighted.

I agree there's certainly scope to question the list mgmt staff, they get their fair share wrong which is to be expected when you're in a business that requires you to make judgement calls on people. Not related to yourself as your posting was always reasoned but the annoyance comes from the way people express their disagreement not the fact that they do.

Fwiw even if we do have hits and misses I'm certainly in the camp of pay a bit more than you'd really want to if you really want a player and do it now. A year is a long time in life and a lot can change. Having said that theres always limits. Personally I think Noble and Ambrogio have struck a pretty good balance between paying a bit more for guys they really like and then getting other role players for pretty reasonable prices.

I think linking in past staff decisions when evaluating the current staff trading is probably a bit far. The conversation is more about the current people we have not so much the past staff. Yes they were professionals as well but we're talking about different people.

Overall no one is above question, but at the same time the current team have a few runs on the board to allow for those questions to be more reasonable then some are posing on here.

 

[spotthedog1]

The only problem is Bastinac wasn’t worth pick 17 and Bell wasn’t worth pick 21 there were a number pick swaps that were part of both trades.

Not sure if you ignored them to further your argument or not.

Bell + 41 = 21 + 60. I considered that the upgrade from pick 60 to 41 to be immaterial. It is the equivalent of pick 51 using the draft points index. Bell was therefore traded for pick 21, with pick 51 coming back. Doesn't alter the argument.

Bastinac is one that gets a bit more contentious, because several posters here feel that, given that 17 would've been lost in academy points, we got him for nothing. I disagree with this, because it ignores that we had other options, like moving 17 back. Or that if 17 was taken in academy points, we still would've had several other picks that were taken instead. We still paid for Hipwood, after all. Nevertheless, the Bastinac trade was:
Bastinac + 38 + 40 + 2016R3 = 17 + 26.
If you cancel out the 38, 40, and 26, and noting that 2016R3 became pick 51, which was probably as expected --> if you add them together, you get the equivalent of pick 41 in draft points. Again - immaterial. Bastinac + 41 = 17 doesn't alter the argument.

Wasn't attempting to skew the figures - just wasn't bothering to announce the loose change. If you feel that this alters the validity of my previous point in any way (that in hindsight, our list managers got these trades wrong), please feel free.

 

[spotthedog1]

I agree there's certainly scope to question the list mgmt staff, they get their fair share wrong which is to be expected when you're in a business that requires you to make judgement calls on people. Not related to yourself as your posting was always reasoned but the annoyance comes from the way people express their disagreement not the fact that they do.

Fwiw even if we do have hits and misses I'm certainly in the camp of pay a bit more than you'd really want to if you really want a player and do it now. A year is a long time in life and a lot can change. Having said that theres always limits. Personally I think Noble and Ambrogio have struck a pretty good balance between paying a bit more for guys they really like and then getting other role players for pretty reasonable prices.

I think linking in past staff decisions when evaluating the current staff trading is probably a bit far. The conversation is more about the current people we have not so much the past staff. Yes they were professionals as well but we're talking about different people.

Overall no one is above question, but at the same time the current team have a few runs on the board to allow for those questions to be more reasonable then some are posing on here.

Very fair.

I know it was different list management staff over time, and not trying to tar our current list management team with old trades - the point was just that there's a lot of guesswork involved, and the professionals can get it wrong just as easily.

 

[jackess]

Bell + 41 = 21 + 60. I considered that the upgrade from pick 60 to 41 to be immaterial. It is the equivalent of pick 51 using the draft points index. Bell was therefore traded for pick 21, with pick 51 coming back. Doesn't alter the argument.

Bastinac is one that gets a bit more contentious, because several posters here feel that, given that 17 would've been lost in academy points, we got him for nothing. I disagree with this, because it ignores that we had other options, like moving 17 back. Or that if 17 was taken in academy points, we still would've had several other picks that were taken instead. We still paid for Hipwood, after all. Nevertheless, the Bastinac trade was:
Bastinac + 38 + 40 + 2016R3 = 17 + 26.
If you cancel out the 38, 40, and 26, and noting that 2016R3 became pick 51, which was probably as expected --> if you add them together, you get the equivalent of pick 41 in draft points. Again - immaterial. Bastinac + 41 = 17 doesn't alter the argument.

Wasn't attempting to skew the figures - just wasn't bothering to announce the loose change. If you feel that this alters the validity of my previous point in any way (that in hindsight, our list managers got these trades wrong), please feel free.

What about the academy bidding?

 

[spotthedog1]

What about the academy bidding?

What about it? As I stated above, we paid academy points for Hipwood regardless - instead of the pick 17, it was later picks that we ended up using to get him. Yes, we knew were were likely to, and we traded out 17 knowing as much, but if we weren't using the pick for Basti, we may have been able to trade up, or trade down. Either way, he still cost us points. Given that my comparison used the same points system, I considered it to be reasonable.

 

[Brett C]

Bell + 41 = 21 + 60. I considered that the upgrade from pick 60 to 41 to be immaterial. It is the equivalent of pick 51 using the draft points index. Bell was therefore traded for pick 21, with pick 51 coming back. Doesn't alter the argument.

Bastinac is one that gets a bit more contentious, because several posters here feel that, given that 17 would've been lost in academy points, we got him for nothing. I disagree with this, because it ignores that we had other options, like moving 17 back. Or that if 17 was taken in academy points, we still would've had several other picks that were taken instead. We still paid for Hipwood, after all. Nevertheless, the Bastinac trade was:
Bastinac + 38 + 40 + 2016R3 = 17 + 26.
If you cancel out the 38, 40, and 26, and noting that 2016R3 became pick 51, which was probably as expected --> if you add them together, you get the equivalent of pick 41 in draft points. Again - immaterial. Bastinac + 41 = 17 doesn't alter the argument.

Wasn't attempting to skew the figures - just wasn't bothering to announce the loose change. If you feel that this alters the validity of my previous point in any way (that in hindsight, our list managers got these trades wrong), please feel free.

Except those picks you call loose change allowed us to pick up players like Mathieson/Skinner while also helping our draft hand for Keays and Hipwood. Picks 17 & 26 became 21 & 31 so hardly massive losses.

Pretty sure the 2016 R3 pick was part of the package with pick 2 & others for GWS picks 3 & 16. You can't just cancel out picks or add points together and say that equals pick x or y.

All those factors fundamentally alter your argument.

We also need to stop considering trade week in isolation, the moves teams make set up the draft for this year and next.

 

[Happy_Neale]

To me it really is as simple as - get the gun player = win the trade. People overrate draft picks way too much after the first 9-10.

 

[FLVanLandingham]

is it too early to be training the house down? I hope at least some pergolas are down by now......

someone please stalk the boys and get us some photos (of them training..), I'm dying here

 

[spotthedog1]

Except those picks you call loose change allowed us to pick up players like Mathieson/Skinner while also helping our draft hand for Keays and Hipwood. Picks 17 & 26 became 21 & 31 so hardly massive losses.

Pretty sure the 2016 R3 pick was part of the package with pick 2 & others for GWS picks 3 & 16. You can't just cancel out picks or add points together and say that equals pick x or y.

All those factors fundamentally alter your argument.

We also need to stop considering trade week in isolation, the moves teams make set up the draft for this year and next.

Yes, draft picks correspond to players. I don't think that "fundamentally alter[s my] argument". If we had different picks, we might've ended up with different players. Would they have been better or worse? No idea. That's how the draft works. And funnily enough, I don't think the presence or absence of the 2016R3 was the defining aspect of the GWS pick swap.

Saying that picks 17 & 26 both got pushed back also completely ignores the argument, which was that sometimes the recruiters get it right, and sometimes they get it wrong. I'd actually say that invalidating my argument by saying "who we would've got at pick 17 might not have been good as a Mathieson/Skinner" is self-defeating. Sometimes players later in the draft turn out better than those drafted earlier. You know why? Because sometimes the professionals get it wrong.