Rumour 2024 Hypothetical trade and FA Thread

[Strapping Young Lad]

2024 Picks



2025 Picks

 

[RCAB]

He's worth every bit of a first round pick. The club is actively pursuing him so to be willing to pay overs they probably see us as seriously challenging for a flag within three years and he's a missing piece that will get us there.

We all argue about what player X is worth giving up for but the bottom line is what the club thinks we need from that player to get us the next Premiership.

And if you traded a first round pick for Barass before, you'd would've given up players like Watson, Day or Weddle. And you would not trade any of those players for Barass right now, who may or many not have 50 games left in his career.

 

[Hrvat Hawks]

And if you traded a first round pick for Barass before, you'd would've given up players like Watson, Day or Weddle. And you would not trade any of those players for Barass right now, who may or many not have 50 games left in his career.

If he even gets you one flag and 3 years you do it.

 

[Maybloomer]

That is very different to a lot of ITK posters who are saying he is not coming.

View attachment 83fd9a44-560d-4864-9df0-5739fc54095a.mp4

 

[TylerDurden]

If he even gets you one flag and 3 years you do it.

This is the million dollar question.

 

[Bedi]

Both Battle and Barras seems overkill to an already well balanced defence so I wouldn't be holding my breath on getting both. Battle situation is really strange for mine. Wanna stay? Sign the ****ing dotted line where it has a plenty dollars written next to it or.... He most likely leaves to the mighty Hawks! İf no signature in the next fortnight, he's a hawk.

For the amount of money we'll be spending you do wonder if we need both. Esp given this is the most dependable backline I've seen in almost a decade. But guess this us having a full tilt at a flag in the next year or two. Players like Barrass don't grow on trees, while reckon we're pretty much committed to taking Battle now (if he wants to come)

My concern is where this leaves Serong. With those two additions, it's unlikely he'll be playing much senior footy 2025. So would be a shame if all this meant us losing a future star key defender

 

[SSSSSS]

Our backline still gets exposed when the ball gets inside 50 with any speed.

We are doing a great job at impeding opposition ball movement.

The next evolution of our defence is being dependable when the chips are against us.

This is where Battle and Barras can make a huge difference. Especially the latter.

 

[tl92]

And those 97 games would most likely include 30-40 very average games at the start of their career.

If we get 3 seasons/60 odd games out of him, that is the equivalent of 100 games from a pick 10 given Barrass comes straight in fully developed and we get those games whilst Day, Newk, Nash etc are in their prime rather than in 4 years time.

These 97 games also likely include top 10 draft picks from the late 80s and early 90s that would play 0 games and have no relevance today. Suspect it also includes guys that have been drafted in the last 5 years and couldn’t have played more than 97 games. In reality, a pick 10 you are a strong chance to get a good to very good player. I’m all for trading our pick for Barass but a top 10 pick nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Simon Crawshay]

To me trading in Battle and Barras is very much the 2020's equivalent of getting Gibson and Lake.

Battle to play the Gibbo role as a slightly undersized CHB who gets plenty of the ball and is an offensive threat and Barras to be the big strong marking FB ala Big Bad Brian.

As good as Sic, Scrimmers and Frosty have been this year as previous poster has said we still look vulnerable to quick balls into our forward line to opponent big key forwards (similar issue we had in the 2010s before we got Gibbo and Lake).

 

[KermitJagger]

And if you traded a first round pick for Barass before, you'd would've given up players like Watson, Day or Weddle. And you would not trade any of those players for Barass right now, who may or many not have 50 games left in his career.

If my grandmother had wheels.

List management teams aren't constantly flying by the seat of their pants, they have plans and preferences in terms of what is available to them in the market and who is available to them with the picks that they have. I doubt if we were finishing bottom 4 again that we'd be jumping to offer our first for Barass because it would indicate that we're a fair bit further away than we thought, and also that we'd have more of a priority choice to a player we really liked.

As it sits, we're on a bit of a tear at the end of the season, our side looks relatively ready to challenge and the +/- on getting Barass to fix a weakness in defence is probably higher than picking the best available kid and waiting 3 or 4 years for them to develop.

These 97 games also likely include top 10 draft picks from the late 80s and early 90s that would play 0 games and have no relevance today. Suspect it also includes guys that have been drafted in the last 5 years and couldn’t have played more than 97 games. In reality, a pick 10 you are a strong chance to get a good to very good player. I’m all for trading our pick for Barass but a top 10 pick nothing to sneeze at.

Pick 10 average from 2000 is 92. Pick 10 average from 2000 - 2018 is 107. They're not worlds apart.

 

[TONYC3163]

And if you traded a first round pick for Barass before, you'd would've given up players like Watson, Day or Weddle. And you would not trade any of those players for Barass right now, who may or many not have 50 games left in his career.

Timing is everything.

 

[The Golden Glenferrie]

To me trading in Battle and Barras is very much the 2020's equivalent of getting Gibson and Lake.

Battle to play the Gibbo role as a slightly undersized CHB who gets plenty of the ball and is an offensive threat and Barras to be the big strong marking FB ala Big Bad Brian.

As good as Sic, Scrimmers and Frosty have been this year as previous poster has said we still look vulnerable to quick balls into our forward line to opponent big key forwards (similar issue we had in the 2010s before we got Gibbo and Lake).

Mitchell is trying to mimic the team Clarkson put together it feels like. Gun backs and good kicking lefties. The rest will take care of itself.

 

[Hrvat Hawks]

This is the million dollar question.

In my eyes it's certainly getting closer to a flag than getting a draft pick. We are now on the rise. To me I'd be topping up with trades now. We have the core. Time to fill the holes and get there as quick as possible.

 

[MazHawk]

And if you traded a first round pick for Barass before, you'd would've given up players like Watson, Day or Weddle. And you would not trade any of those players for Barass right now, who may or many not have 50 games left in his career.

Pick 10 wouldn't have got us any of them. Read the previous post about the pick 10 strike rate.

 

[Roger Rogerson]

According to a very good source. But, the info may be wrong. Let’s wait until the end of the season and see where it lands. More negotiations to be had.

Battle’s flexibility would be an ace for Sam.

In the top 5 runners at the Saints. Right up our alley.

 

[Topiary]

Our backline still gets exposed when the ball gets inside 50 with any speed.

We are doing a great job at impeding opposition ball movement.

The next evolution of our defence is being dependable when the chips are against us.

This is where Battle and Barras can make a huge difference. Especially the latter.

Flexibility.

 

[KermitJagger]

Mitchell is trying to mimic the team Clarkson put together it feels like. Gun backs and good kicking lefties. The rest will take care of itself.

I'm not sure on this. I think those are just generic parts that all good teams have, you want your best users off half back and you want good defenders. Clarko didn't invent that.

AFL history shows that the game plan has to be built for the team you have at your disposal, you don't force a game plan on a team that isn't capable of it. Hardwick spent half a decade trying to imitate Hawthorn's kicking style of footy, which failed. He then realised that while he didn't have a lot of players with immense skill, he had a lot of players with immense workrate and he developed a plan that built on our forward half pressure game and turnover game but involved moving the ball forward any way possible instead of meticulously by foot. Not a copy, but synthesis.

There are some key similarities with what Sam is building, a lot of the ground defence and positioning is still useful, but there is a lot different. We're much more half forward oriented, we're significantly lower possession, we move it by hand a lot more than we used to and we're significantly bigger and more physically imposing through the middle. He's not shying away from those differences and trying to rebuild the threepeat side, he's taking the players he has and building a plan to their strengths.

 

[The Golden Glenferrie]

I'm not sure on this. I think those are just generic parts that all good teams have, you want your best users off half back and you want good defenders. Clarko didn't invent that.

Then why don't more teams do it? I think these guys identify them better.

Such a tough task turning other people's trash into treasure

 

[cryptor]

Our backline still gets exposed when the ball gets inside 50 with any speed.

We are doing a great job at impeding opposition ball movement.

The next evolution of our defence is being dependable when the chips are against us.

This is where Battle and Barras can make a huge difference. Especially the latter.

I think this media narrative about our back 6 being vulnerable when our midfield doesn't defend ball movement is a bit misleading.

ALL teams back 6 are vulnerable to being exposed when their midfields don't defend ball movement. The opposition forward craft and delivery inside 50 are also factors, but all things being good and equal and even the best back 6 are going to be up against it when the ball can quickly be moved inside 50.

What I reckon has happened to create this narrative is that "stats gurus" like David King just look at the season long stats and draw their conclusion from that. The issue with this is that we were so bad at defending ball movement in the first month or so of the season that it completely tanked our rating in the related stat (goals per inside 50) and even though this stat has improved for us since our winning form run, it's been slow to recover.

Across the entire 2024 season (to end of round 20) we are 5th worst, allowing 24.1% of inside 50's to be converted to goals. But the 1.6 percentage point difference between us and the next worst in Essendon is roughly the same difference between us and Adelaide who are 6th best. And across the entire season we're about on par with Carlton and Brisbane who have Weitering and Andrews.



Now compare the same stat across the last 5 games (I'd like to have done since round 8 but this website just allows all or last 5) and we are top 4 for preventing a goal when conceding an inside 50.



Remember the criticism is that if a team can get inside 50 against us then we are vulnerable. It supposes that even if a weaker team has limited inside 50's because our defending of ball movement is strong that they should still convert a goal at a higher rate. The numbers don't appear to support that.

So why target Battle and Barrass? Simple. Depth and experience in key positions, and freeing up players with great attacking attributes to do more of that.

 

[KermitJagger]

I think this media narrative about our back 6 being vulnerable when our midfield doesn't defend ball movement is a bit misleading.

ALL teams back 6 are vulnerable to being exposed when their midfields don't defend ball movement. The opposition forward craft and delivery inside 50 are also factors, but all things being good and equal and even the best back 6 are going to be up against it when the ball can quickly be moved inside 50.

What I reckon has happened to create this narrative is that "stats gurus" like David King just look at the season long stats and draw their conclusion from that. The issue with this is that we were so bad at defending ball movement in the first month or so of the season that it completely tanked our rating in the related stat (goals per inside 50) and even though this stat has improved for us since our winning form run, it's been slow to recover.

Across the entire 2024 season (to end of round 20) we are 5th worst, allowing 24.1% of inside 50's to be converted to goals. But the 1.6 percentage point difference between us and the next worst in Essendon is roughly the same difference between us and Adelaide who are 6th best. And across the entire season we're about on par with Carlton and Brisbane who have Weitering and Andrews.

View attachment 2065974

Now compare the same stat across the last 5 games (I'd like to have done since round 8 but this website just allows all or last 5) and we are top 4 for preventing a goal when conceding an inside 50.

View attachment 2065988

Remember the criticism is that if a team can get inside 50 against us then we are vulnerable. It supposes that even if a weaker team has limited inside 50's because our defending of ball movement is strong that they should still convert a goal at a higher rate. The numbers don't appear to support that.

So why target Battle and Barrass? Simple. Depth and experience in key positions, and freeing up players with great attacking attributes to do more of that.

I would like to say though, we have been let off a fair bit with opposition inaccuracy. We are allowing the second most scoring shots Per I50 over the last 5 weeks.

I think that targeting Barrass in particular is a bit more than just for depth's sake. We've looked shaky under the high ball and if Barrass is good at one thing it's that. It is a part of the ground that concerns me, stats aside.

 

[cryptor]

I would like to say though, we have been let off a fair bit with opposition inaccuracy. We are allowing the second most scoring shots Per I50 over the last 5 weeks.

I think that targeting Barrass in particular is a bit more than just for depth's sake. We've looked shaky under the high ball and if Barrass is good at one thing it's that. It is a part of the ground that concerns me, stats aside.

We were also punished by exceptional opposition accuracy earlier in the season. Which might suggest that when you defend ball movement well and make it hard for the opposition to get it inside 50 that even when they do get it in there that they will be more fatigued and feel more pressure (in general play and maybe even on set shots) which then leads to poor accuracy.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Our backline still gets exposed when the ball gets inside 50 with any speed.

We are doing a great job at impeding opposition ball movement.

The next evolution of our defence is being dependable when the chips are against us.

This is where Battle and Barras can make a huge difference. Especially the latter.

I'm not disagreeing with you as I've heard the talking heads mention that fact a few times now.

I just want to understand; how are we getting exposed exactly?

How would both Battle and Barrass help combat that?

And how will they both fit into the side? Who makes way?

I think Mitchell must have a vision on how he will use Barrass and probably has for some time, given our chase of Taylor, who is a similar style of defender.

 

[Brant]

We were also punished by exceptional opposition accuracy earlier in the season. Which might suggest that when you defend ball movement well and make it hard for the opposition to get it inside 50 that even when they do get it in there that they will be more fatigued and feel more pressure (in general play and maybe even on set shots) which then leads to poor accuracy.

And their shots on goal come from more difficult positions

 

[Brant]

I'm not disagreeing with you as I've heard the talking heads mention that fact a few times now.
I just want to understand how are we getting exposed exactly?
How would both Battle and Barrass help combat that?

And how will they both fit into the side? Who makes way?

I think Mitchell must have a vision on how he will use Barrass and probably has for some time, given our chase of Taylor, who is a similar style of defender.

Battle likely won't.
Barrass will improve our ability to defend the high/long ball to the top of the Goal Square (if we land him).

 

[Iceman!]

If he even gets you one flag and 3 years you do it.

But you don’t know that when making a trade

 

[Iceman!]

I am surprised more people aren’t scared at the Barrass quotes that were posed a few pages back…

His comments on his back set off huge alarm bells for me. Especially when more often than not a player is going to try and downplay these sorts of issues.