List Mgmt. 2021 Trade & List Management Thread II - IN: CCJ

[giantroo]

Spoiler: Lore's 2021 Draft Order

Spoiler: Lore's 2022 Future Picks Draft Order

 

[ferball]

The problem with this is that it requires a fair bit of revisionist thinking and captain hindsight type stuff.

The 2018 draft was probably the most hyped draft since 2001. Clubs were loathe to give up their early selections due to the talent available and any club that traded up had to give up a lot. For example, Port traded 11, 23, 30 and 49 for a 5 pick upgrade from 11 to 6 and a future third. Port then had to give up 36, a future third and take on Sam Mayes to move up a single spot in the draft from 6 to 5.

To get ahead of a Thomas bid, and it's fair to point out here that we didn't know where it was going to come, we would have had to get into at least the top 6 to be sure and that either would have cost the rest of our draft capital that we had available to match the Thomas bid or most likely a future first.

Now, it's easy to criticise Joyces in hindsight and say he should have done all those things, but trading always requires two willing parties, and clubs just didn't want to give up those early picks that year. And in hindsight, you can say we should have traded a future first but those what if games are a bit silly (even if I sometimes think about them as well). Who's to say that we trade that future first, and then the next year we can't do the deal with Melbourne and ultimately we don't end up with Tom Powell? There's too many permutations.

Spot on.

Who is giving us a top six pick when Walsh, Lukosius, Rankine, the Kings, Rozee and Smith were all there to be taken? As it is we came out with Scott and Taylor and may get great service out of Hall again this coming season. Who knows we might even see a repeat of 2019 from Polec. If we get a good year out of those four then 2018 looks great. As it is it still looks good with Taylor, Scott and Hall's form after getting his breathing fixed.

And of course TT.

 

[WodongaKanga]

Are we a chance to snag Charlie Constable

33

Charlie Constable

Age

26

Ht

192cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

D/M

Career

Season

Last 5

D

21.4

5star

K

9.0

3star

HB

12.4

5star

M

4.6

4star

T

3.7

5star

No current season stats available

D

22.4

5star

K

10.0

4star

HB

12.4

5star

M

4.4

4star

T

3.4

5star

from the cats?

 

[The Filth Wizard]

We didn't trade for Polec to absorb the first rounder. We traded for Polec because we bought him to come in with Gaff and then Gaff changed his mind. Perhaps we could have traded better but we were committed to Polec long before we had to trade for him and as much as it seems wrong now, he was worth a late first rounder based on his last season at Port.

 

[Psicosis]

Spot on.

Who is giving us a top six pick when Walsh, Lukosius, Rankine, the Kings, Rozee and Smith were all there to be taken? As it is we came out with Scott and Taylor and may get great service out of Hall again this coming season. Who knows we might even see a repeat of 2019 from Polec. If we get a good year out of those four then 2018 looks great. As it is it still looks good with Taylor, Scott and Hall's form after getting his breathing fixed.

And of course TT.

Very simple, we should have traded the Polec pick for future pick/s. 2018 was a power house draft and multiple clubs would have taken that pick.

Revisionist or not, I think we need to be able to wear, learn from & own poor list management decisions. Trading that 2018 first rounder for Polec, is one of those.

 

[ferball]

This time it just seemed a bit cobbled together, with data and comparisons that didn't suit the analysis, or was too scant on explaining the methodology.
Maybe a tight deadline hurt them.

Edit: I also must admit to a dislike of the extent these types of articles go to justify calls on 'winners' and 'losers' so early.
And I should have said trade period, nobody is perfect I guess.

Its a shit trade period and they have to fill hours of time talking about what amount to **** all really.

It wouldn't be easy to make it sound not totally shit, the fact its vaguely interesting sometimes (tho I only listen to bits about our players posted here so maybe that's why) is actually a credit to them.

 

[Lomas]

Its a sh*t trade period and they have to fill hours of time talking about what amount to fu** all really.

It wouldn't be easy to make it sound not totally sh*t, the fact its vaguely interesting sometimes (tho I only listen to bits about our players posted here so maybe that's why) is actually a credit to them.

They were not talking though, they cobbled some shit stats together and wrote who won and who lost. Wasted their time and ours.

 

[tales129]

That was an acknowledged, hyped "super draft". Who was gonna give up a top ten pick?

We weren’t far off it for Polec!
We would have had to give up some decent collateral in a player but the fact is we weren’t adventurous enough back then.

 

[Lomas]

We weren’t far off it for Polec!
We would have had to give up some decent collateral in a player but the fact is we weren’t adventurous enough back then.

It is what it is. The comparison to the Saints this year is a waste of time.

 

[tales129]

It is what it is. The comparison to the Saints this year is a waste of time.

yeh theres no comparison. Saints should just take 9 and pick a decent player and go into deficit for the future

 

[ferball]

So the Dog's pick 23 and Pies pick 27 are on the trade table. Any chance we can move our 40's pick into that range?


42+ 47 = 711 points

Pick 23 = 815
Pick 27 = 703

I've been saying that all week... we're in the box seat for it. We might need to offer them something from next year cos they don't have to do it. it doesn't change anything for them. It would probably be worth it to give up our third next year and go all in on finishing the rebuild.

But 42 will become 40 or 41 (40 if Richmond can motivate the Dogs to trade 23.) I think they are in the best position to make that trade and it would really bolster their stocks. If they can do 38 and 40 for 23. Might be an 80 point increase but you'd have to check, I jave a feeling when I checked I thought they had 35. They'd have 7, 15, 23, 26 and 28. This year in a draft that's sposed to be even till 30ish. If they nail this they rebuild quickly. If they can't get the dogs pick 23 they will probably chase 27, so it comes down to what they offer ... it might be our 2nd next year. (Tho I doubt it.) If the points match close enough the Pies will want the best deal they can.

If Richmond do trade 38 and 40 for one in the 20s and we keep those later picks (42 & 47) they end up as 40 and 41. The pies turn 2 picks under 42 and three picks before 47 into one pick - Daicos if he goes early enough (top 4?). The Dogs have one pick under 42 and four under 47 and they all disappear ... well turn into Darcy, if a bid comes early enough, around 6th or 7th pick I think.

Our 42 moves up one spot if the pies match an early bid and two (to pick 40) if Richmond trade into the 20s. Our pick 47 moves up two picks if the Pies match early, and three if the Dogs do. Five spots for those two and another one if Richmond trade up into the 20s.

That's barring any other shenanigans that may move us up more. Nothing will move us back (apart from late Bids on the two F/S prospects.)

We might even prefer to gamble on the lack of exposure and try to get two players in the early 40s in the hope at least one is further up our target list and not even bother chasing 27.

I genuinely think they were aware of all this and aware of the value of those picks not only in terms of ending up lower as the F/S bids get matched but also of the points value and the chance to trade with Collingwood when they did the CCJ deal. (The Eagles also have 29 tho i dunno why they'd trade it for points. Carlton have 25 but ... well Voss is coach so anything's possible I guess.) Its the sort of thing Merlin007 was referring to when he talked about the way Melbourne trade so well for points.

 

[Merlin007]

I've been saying that all week... we're in the box seat for it. We might need to offer them something from next year cos they don't have to do it. it doesn't change anything for them. It would probably be worth it to give up our third next year and go all in on finishing the rebuild.

But 42 will become 40 or 41 (40 if Richmond can motivate the Dogs to trade 23.) I think they are in the best position to make that trade and it would really bolster their stocks. If they can do 38 and 40 for 23. Might be an 80 point increase but you'd have to check, I jave a feeling when I checked I thought they had 35. They'd have 7, 15, 23, 26 and 28. This year in a draft that's sposed to be even till 30ish. If they nail this they rebuild quickly. If they can't get the dogs pick 23 they will probably chase 27, so it comes down to what they offer ... it might be our 2nd next year. (Tho I doubt it.) If the points match close enough the Pies will want the best deal they can.

If Richmond do trade 38 and 40 for one in the 20s and we keep those later picks (42 & 47) they end up as 40 and 41. The pies turn 2 picks under 42 and three picks before 47 into one pick - Daicos if he goes early enough (top 4?). The Dogs have one pick under 42 and four under 47 and they all disappear ... well turn into Darcy, if a bid comes early enough, around 6th or 7th pick I think.

Our 42 moves up one spot if the pies match an early bid and two (to pick 40) if Richmond trade into the 20s. Our pick 47 moves up two picks if the Pies match early, and three if the Dogs do. Five spots for those two and another one if Richmond trade up into the 20s.

That's barring any other shenanigans that may move us up more. Nothing will move us back (apart from late Bids on the two F/S prospects.)

We might even prefer to gamble on the lack of exposure and try to get two players in the early 40s in the hope at least one is further up our target list and not even bother chasing 27.

I genuinely think they were aware of all this and aware of the value of those picks not only in terms of ending up lower as the F/S bids get matched but also of the points value and the chance to trade with Collingwood when they did the CCJ deal. (The Eagles also have 29 tho i dunno why they'd trade it for points. Carlton have 25 but ... well Voss is coach so anything's possible I guess.) Its the sort of thing Merlin007 was referring to when he talked about the way Melbourne trade so well for points.

the general proposition about trading up is the option we need to pursue, but with one correction to detail, in that I don't understand the reference to our second next year, which went with the CCJ trade (apologies if I've misunderstood the argument). Even if 42 and 47 (and 72 is also worth a few points) can't be turned into anything higher up, there's still good prospects at those picks, so it's still a strong overall position given we will get the outstanding talent in the draft at #1

 

[hellas_johnny]

he

the general proposition about trading up is the option we need to pursue, but with one correction to detail, in that I don't understand the reference to our second next year, which went with the CCJ trade (apologies if I've misunderstood the argument). Even if 42 and 47 (and 72 is also worth a few points) can't be turned into anything higher up, there's still good prospects at those picks, so it's still a strong overall position given we will get the outstanding talent in the draft at #1

hes saying richmond might need to trade the 2nd next year to dogs to get the deal through

 

[Nutjob]

The problem with this is that it requires a fair bit of revisionist thinking and captain hindsight type stuff.

The 2018 draft was probably the most hyped draft since 2001. Clubs were loathe to give up their early selections due to the talent available and any club that traded up had to give up a lot. For example, Port traded 11, 23, 30 and 49 for a 5 pick upgrade from 11 to 6 and a future third. Port then had to give up 36, a future third and take on Sam Mayes to move up a single spot in the draft from 6 to 5.

To get ahead of a Thomas bid, and it's fair to point out here that we didn't know where it was going to come, we would have had to get into at least the top 6 to be sure and that either would have cost the rest of our draft capital that we had available to match the Thomas bid or most likely a future first.

Now, it's easy to criticise Joyces in hindsight and say he should have done all those things, but trading always requires two willing parties, and clubs just didn't want to give up those early picks that year. And in hindsight, you can say we should have traded a future first but those what if games are a bit silly (even if I sometimes think about them as well). Who's to say that we trade that future first, and then the next year we can't do the deal with Melbourne and ultimately we don't end up with Tom Powell? There's too many permutations.

Completely agree it was a difficult task to move up in the 2018 draft. But it would have been a fairly simple task to trade it for a future first with some icing on top. Unfortunately at the time the club thought our list was better than it really was.

I don’t blame Joyce necessarily for doing the Polec deal. He didn’t solely choose the direction the club was taking at the time. I think people need to take into account that when Joyce was in charge of our list, he had a certain direction he had to adhere too.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[DocSholl]

We might even prefer to gamble on the lack of exposure and try to get two players in the early 40s in the hope at least one is further up our target list and not even bother chasing 27.

I think this is more likely, especially given Luff's approach.

 

[Twinkletoes]

It’s (way past) time to lock this bad boy and move onto thread III.

2021 Trade and List Management thread III. IN: CCJ
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/inde...-List-Management-thread-III.-IN:-CCJ.1289640/