Rumour 2022 Rumour Discussion Thread

[Scorpus]

Keep up to date with the latest Crows rumors in our summary thread: Rumour - Rumours Thread for Rumors Only

If you post a new rumor here, let me know and I'll copy it over

 

[FR0GGY]

I can see the rationale of people talking about trading McAdam. He's 27, no major accolades yet and has some value. But I wouldn't be trading him.

Rankine, McAdam and Rachele gives us a genuinely exciting forward line and an actual point of difference. These guys, rather than Rowe, Murphy and McHenry, bring people to the game. And most importantly, every team would struggle to cover them all. Rachele or McAdam on the third best small defender will have a field day.

Gollant can cover mcadam

 

[StonesThrow]

What is Jordan Dawson valued at under this system?

I'd pay a top 10 pick for a Dawson every single year.

We underpaid at the time even taking into account his contract.

Cox is contracted isn't he? Skippos is right.

 

[BunjiMC]

I'd do our 1st and Rachelle for Rankine and JHF.....and I've got #8 on my guernsey

 

[Gtowncrow]

I'd do our 1st and Rachelle for Rankine and JHF.....and I've got #8 on my guernsey

Sorry Bunj. I'm not with you on that. Rachele might end up the best of the three.

I think we split our first to get Rankine this year and offer North the other and next years first. If they refuse. Walk him to the draft at end of next year.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I'd do our 1st and Rachelle for Rankine and JHF.....and I've got #8 on my guernsey

I would too and it's not that I don't rate Rachele. I just rate our need for mids higher than small forwards even though we need both.

 

[Skippos]

I just don't think clubs trade top picks like that for key defenders. There's seems to really be few examples - is Melbourne's current defence the only example?

Personally, I feel it's much easier to find a key defender. You can grab a lower league player like Sam Collins or a failed forward like Liam Jones, and end up with something perfectly serviceable.

The difference you presented between Cox and Butts was maybe one contest a week.

Forwards who can WIN you games? They seem fewer on the ground.

And because there are very few good key defenders floating around these days and they don't exchange clubs very often. Clubs know their value and keep them. Obviously there'll always be your Marcus Adams/Lewis Young/Aliir Aliir types who fall out of favour/aren't rated by their clubs and can be picked up cheap by an astute buyer, but at the time of the transaction they were considered not particularly strong and grew afterwards.

I can only think of two KPDs who changed clubs while 'in favour' - May (pick 5) and Howard (pick 18) - who isn't even that good. I'd certainly prefer Cox.

There are less high quality KPDs in the league now, and certainly less floating around the state leagues. It's a lot harder to find a Sam Collins now than before.

And yep - the difference averages out to a contest a week (probably less) - but that's just one on ones. Bigger picture, Cox has an extra spoil a game, 2 extra defensive 50 pressure acts (6 vs 4) and rates higher for tackles too. In a team that averages 4 less inside 50s a week against them. And then there's Cox's 1.5 contested marks vs Butts 0.5. Cox 2.5 intercept marks vs Butts 1.7. And that's just what's statistically quantifiable from a defensive point of view. So when I consider that Cox is neutralising more one-on-ones, taking an extra contested grab and intercept grab a game, applying 50% more pressure acts and making more spoils. Then there's the offensive game - 7 more touches, 3 more marks.

I think it's fair to say the difference is not negligible, and there's probably a reason why the best teams this year all seem to have a great to excellent two-way defender - Melbourne have May, Collingwood Moore, Brisbane Andrews, Fremantle Cox, Geelong Blicavs when he's back there, but DeKoning also. Carlton Weitering. Sydney McCartin.

And it's why when teams see a solid two-way defender available in the draft, they're happy to burn a first round pick to get them. If this role wasn't worth much, teams wouldn't take Weitering at pick 1. Or Grainger-Barras, Marchbank, and (shuddering) McAsey at pick 6. Or Naughton & Reid at 9. Or Lever at pick 14. Or Durdin at pick 16. Making those picks knowing that there's a chance they'll be a McAsey or Durdin, but doing it anyway. Busslinger this year will be top 10 too.

We were happy to burn pick 6 on probably the weakest prospect of that above bunch seeing the value in acquiring that role. So why not at the trade table?

None of this is a hit piece on Butts. He's solid. Honest. I like him. I hope he plays 150 games. But if we're looking at the difference between players - Cox is a huge upgrade over him. Ideally if we got him it'd be in addition to Butts, not in place of.

What is Jordan Dawson valued at under this system?

A hell of a lot more than we paid for him. Our leverage over Sydney (PSD + out of contract) obviously helped that.

Generally if you're acquiring players via trade, you're winning the deal. They rarely go for a package that is likely to perform at a higher level than the player is. Picks have bust rates. Known quantities less so. Obviously exceptions - Gibbs, McGovern, Beams the 2nd time. And sometimes the pick you trade outperforms that pick.

Wait, did you just compare McAdam to players in state leagues? Are we watching different players?

Cox is a decent player, but he seems to be getting fairly overrated on this board. Not a player we should be paying a premium for.

No, I didn't compare him to them. But let's not pretend McAdam is a world beater either - he's not orders of magnitude better than SANFL/VFL players either (like Cox is). He's just solid. He's clearly better than what's available for 'free' - but value works from that point too. Nobody's going to give us anything for Ben Davis, for example, because they'll be able to find similar-ish players for free.

I'm aware McAdam does some pretty crazy things that don't turn up in stats, but among small forwards he ranks 51st for score involvements, 15th for shots at goal, and 143rd for pressure acts. Sure - aerial stuff is his game, and he's solid at that. But I mean Fremantle grabbed Switkowski for sfa, Collingwood his brother, Ash Johnson. Geelong Stengle. Essendon Nic Martin. There's not many of them, but they exist.

 

[Mego Red]

I really value your opinions, Skippos - but I actually think it's far easier to find a plug and play key defender in the lower leagues than it is a genuine goalkicking forward.

Also - the Howard trade was Dougal, Paddy Ryder and pick 10 for picks 12 and 18, which is a bit different. Not sure what that actually values Howard at, but it won't 18.

 

[dplggr47]

I can see the rationale of people talking about trading McAdam. He's 27, no major accolades yet and has some value. But I wouldn't be trading him.

Rankine, McAdam and Rachele gives us a genuinely exciting forward line and an actual point of difference. These guys, rather than Rowe, Murphy and McHenry, bring people to the game. And most importantly, every team would struggle to cover them all. Rachele or McAdam on the third best small defender will have a field day.

Was going to say I love what McAdam brings as a forward that can mark, kick goals and lays a very good tackle, but didn't realise he was 27, which is the same age we traded out Greenwood and Keath (both for unders).

 

[Danger in Texas]

The more goals we get the more pressure we put the opposition under.

Yes, but we also can’t just leak like a sieve whenever we aren’t able to score inside our F50

 

[LeftyLuke]

Yes, but we also can’t just leak like a sieve whenever we aren’t able to score inside our F50

We need Dawson on the wing with that laser kick. I've noticed that we do seem a bit more composed lately with our kicks inside 50.

 

[TryAnHit]

We need Dawson on the wing with that laser kick. I've noticed that we do seem a bit more composed lately with our kicks inside 50.

Also depends if he can play wing well. Remember when we tried to turn smith into outside mid / wing and he went terrible. Sometimes a player is just an elite hbf.

 

[glengowan]

It should be achievable to bring in both Rankine and Phillipou this year. That should be the goal.

If JHF becomes available, then the goal is Rankine and JHF.

PS. I wouldn’t trade McAdam. He has been exceptional this year - we’re just seeing him blossom. He adds a point of difference to the forward line.

I also don’t see the need for Cox unless he’s cheap. Back in Butts and Murray and Worrell.

 

[MrBarry]

Ban lifted....

 

[BunjiMC]

Sorry Bunj. I'm not with you on that. Rachele might end up the best of the three.

I think we split our first to get Rankine this year and offer North the other and next years first. If they refuse. Walk him to the draft at end of next year.

I know he might. And he seems like he might be a heart and soul player.....but he also might leave in 3 years.

JHF is the mid we need. It might be the only way we get him out of there and we replace Rachele with Rankine.

I'm not saying I want it to happen but if it did I wouldn't be too upset.

 

[Gtowncrow]

I know he might. And he seems like he might be a heart and soul player.....but he also might leave in 3 years.

JHF is the mid we need. It might be the only way we get him out of there and we replace Rachele with Rankine.

I'm not saying I want it to happen but if it did I wouldn't be too upset.

I'm hoping that in three years time we are pushing for a premiership.

If so, he will have been on that journey with his teammates for quite a few years. It would be human nature to want to see the journey through with the (his) team.

Culture is massive in retaining players. I hope we have learnt from our past. The first test of this will be the first (junior) delistings and trades out of the club. Probably this year.

 

[dogs105]

Ban lifted....

North board calling...

 

[BunjiMac]

I know he might. And he seems like he might be a heart and soul player.....but he also might leave in 3 years.

JHF is the mid we need. It might be the only way we get him out of there and we replace Rachele with Rankine.

I'm not saying I want it to happen but if it did I wouldn't be too upset.

If we had to give up Rachelle to land Rankine and JHF, similarly I wouldn't be happy but could live with it.

I'd obviously explore every other option first though.

 

[BunjiMC]

I'm hoping that in three years time we are pushing for a premiership.

If so, he will have been on that journey with his teammates for quite a few years. It would be human nature to want to see the journey through with the (his) team.

Culture is massive in retaining players. I hope we have learnt from our past. The first test of this will be the first (junior) delistings and trades out of the club. Probably this year.

Just like Danger.....

 

[CROUCH #2]

Matty Crouch in talks with Kangaroos.
(Apparently)

 

[Golumless]

Matty Crouch in talks with Kangaroos.
(Apparently)

Got to somehow replace JHF for next year.

He's cheap and they need experienced lads, so it makes sense on the side of the coin, but equally with Simpkin/Cunnington/LDU next year, it's not like North needs pure inside mids.

 

[Scorpus]

Matty Crouch in talks with Kangaroos.
(Apparently)

He'd be a terrible fit for North so I'm all for it

 

[Gtowncrow]

Just like Danger.....

Yeah I know. Hope we're better today

 

[Carmo]

Not sure why we'd be interested in Cox, unless he's determined to get back to SA. In that scenario we pay unders and it might be worth it. Otherwise, I just don't see a fit or how we get value for money. We play the most-difficult-on-defenders gameplan in the comp. That makes our defenders look worse than they are and others coming from outside our system would go from looking better to looking worse. Based on that I don't think Cox is a major upgrade on Butts nor Murray (given a few more years development for him). Along similar lines we play the hardest-on-forwards gameplan too, which makes our forwards look worse than they are, highlighting that Fog is indeed very good and Berg's prolly worth a bit more than people on here think (very late first to end of second for me for the record). The last thing I can think of is that maybe if Freo want Berg, Cox has been offered up, or vice versa, to take higher end picks out of the question and using players as covering some of the cost that allows late picks. If we did get Cox (and or another somewhat proven defender) at least we could be comfortable then letting go Frampton and McAsey.

What we paid for Dawson shows where its at when the recieving club holds all the cards (and they always hold all the cards - no one is going to attempt to sign someone who doesn't want to come to their club - its only been done once that I can recall - so you can forget PSD threat, it doesn't even come into play).

So my call for what we'll pay for Rankine is still a late first or early second.

I think we'll keep our first rounder and draft someone with that.

I doubt we'll get Francis, though I bet we'll keep feigning interest even if we arent a chance as that still serves as a big win for us costing North and or whomever gets him $ or picks or other collateral.

If list sizes expand, it could be quite handy for us. If they increase by say 2 does that mean adding 2 to fill those spots qualifies as one of the three compulsory list changes?? If they do (or even if they dont) it means we could probably attempt to recontract ppl like Berg and Frampton meaning other clubs have to trade if they want them. If they dont expand the list sizes, sux a little but still no biggie.

 

[Sanders]

Not sure why we'd be interested in Cox, unless he's determined to get back to SA. In that scenario we pay unders and it might be worth it. Otherwise, I just don't see a fit or how we get value for money. We play the most-difficult-on-defenders gameplan in the comp. That makes our defenders look worse than they are and others coming from outside our system would go from looking better to looking worse. Based on that I don't think Cox is a major upgrade on Butts nor Murray (given a few more years development for him). Along similar lines we play the hardest-on-forwards gameplan too, which makes our forwards look worse than they are, highlighting that Fog is indeed very good and Berg's prolly worth a bit more than people on here think (very late first to end of second for me for the record). The last thing I can think of is that maybe if Freo want Berg, Cox has been offered up, or vice versa, to take higher end picks out of the question and using players as covering some of the cost that allows late picks. If we did get Cox (and or another somewhat proven defender) at least we could be comfortable then letting go Frampton and McAsey.

What we paid for Dawson shows where its at when the recieving club holds all the cards (and they always hold all the cards - no one is going to attempt to sign someone who doesn't want to come to their club - its only been done once that I can recall - so you can forget PSD threat, it doesn't even come into play).

So my call for what we'll pay for Rankine is still a late first or early second.

I think we'll keep our first rounder and draft someone with that.

I doubt we'll get Francis, though I bet we'll keep feigning interest even if we arent a chance as that still serves as a big win for us costing North and or whomever gets him $ or picks or other collateral.

If list sizes expand, it could be quite handy for us. If they increase by say 2 does that mean adding 2 to fill those spots qualifies as one of the three compulsory list changes?? If they do (or even if they dont) it means we could probably attempt to recontract ppl like Berg and Frampton meaning other clubs have to trade if they want them. If they dont expand the list sizes, sux a little but still no biggie.

Anyone?

 

[Hodgy]

If we had to give up Rachelle to land Rankine and JHF, similarly I wouldn't be happy but could live with it.

I'd obviously explore every other option first though.

I never understand how guys like Kane Cornes suggest us trading a Rachelle as if they are a commodity. We’re not the same as America, a player here has to want to go somewhere for them to be part of any trade discussion, and Rachelle has 3 years left on a contract that we and him agreed to. How would you honestly have the discussion with him that you want him to go to GC when he appears to have fully bought into our team and culture. And even if you can get him to agree, what do the rest of the team, and his friends think of the process when you are trying to build good culture.

Players that are struggling to get a game are obviously different, but Rachelle is not in that category.