Opinion Beams Trade [Officially derailed: Now disussing the folly of gambling, net negative players and the merit of Sier]

[ant22]

Draft picks may be busts, but they can also get you the next Scott Pendlebury, or next Sidebottom, or next 18 year old Beams who will play for 12+ years at your club, compared to a 29 year old star who may only have 2 good years left.

We need to finish top 4 next year and Beams needs to have at least 3 good years left for it to be a good trade

Well I’d hope that’s the plan kappa. We finished a kick away from a flag without a few key players. Hawks have been the model and proven that topping up when you are in the window is the way to go.

Beans may only have 2 good years left or he might have 5 . The 2019 pick we gave away is a hell of a lot more unknown than that and the chances of him having 2 years at beams standard are slim. There’s always ifs and buts in footy but we are in the window and it’s good to see we are having a crack.

 

[Mazza1234678]

With beams coming back I see pendles being moved maybe to a half back now and playing big stints there

Thoughts?

 

[ant22]

Adelaide overpaid for Gibbs.

I'd also say that, while Beams and Gibbs are different types of midfielders, they're relatively on par looking at them objectively.

We'd better hope that a bid for Quaynor doesn't come before pick 18, as we're going to struggle to match bids on both Quaynor and Kelly if a bid comes for Quaynor that early and a bid for Kelly comes inside the top 30 (giving Brisbane pick 56 instead of pick 57 is still a bit of a head scratcher in that respect).

Conversely our "draft strategy" is going to look a little silly if a bid on Quaynor doesn't come until the mid 20's and a bid on Kelly doesn't come until 35 or later.

It'll all shake itself out after the draft I guess - we'll just have to wait until then to see how good or otherwise the particulars of this trade were, but in the end we still have Beams who is hopefully going to contribute a lot more over the next few years than any draftee would have and we managed to keep the rest of the team together, so hopefully we can sustain our form in the finals throughout 2019 and be a contender again with what is guaranteed to be a much tougher draw.

I think we would have trade 18 for later multiple picks regardless. Let’s say we picked someone else with 18 and quaynor goes at 19 . Our next pick is 51 so we would have been stuffed.

 

[MyManLynch]

Im no academy point guru but I assume two picks in the 40s are close to pick 18

So no, we didnt overpay. Hes easily worth a future first rounder, especially one that should be 14+. It was a fair deal.

In 2009 we gave up our first second and third to get Jolly and Ball.

Correct, we still land IQ (as a late 1st Round or early 2nd Round) plus Kelly.
Hence a 2019 pick (hopefully mid/late teens) for Beams is a good deal.
If we didn’t trade for Beams our pick 18 most likely would have been spent anyway...either matching IQ bid or traded to generate more points.
Doubt we would have used pick 18 as a live pick, leaving us in severe points deficit for IQ & Kelly.
I support the trade...makes us better.

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

With beams coming back I see pendles being moved maybe to a half back now and playing big stints there

Thoughts?

Think Siddey is probably the likely candidate to move to half-back/wing role as he dominated last years finals series from there.

Pendles is a good ball user but probably doesn't put enough defensive pressure on for me, Scharenberg plays that role better than Pendles imo.

 

[Number 10]

So we gave 2 first rounders and swapped some picks for De Goey, Crisp, Greenwood.

I’d do that all day every day!

 

[TW Sherrin]

With beams coming back I see pendles being moved maybe to a half back now and playing big stints there

Thoughts?

he cant play there he gets exposed for pace. maybe he can play outside more ie defensive wing or iso forward like he did against north a few years back.

 

[Brad Goodman]

I voted no, but it could really go either way. You have to take risks to succeed in life.

 

[Go Pies!!!!!]

offcourse we overpaid but we are bringing an Elite midfielder who gets 30 Disposals a game and kicks a goal a game, you need to overpay to get them when they are contracted. Personally i was 50/50 about getting him but now the deal is done im happy, if our midfield can stay healthy next year look out!!!

 

[MarkT2]

I think we over paid. I think we too often over pay these days after being to reluctant to pay tote odds for a long time under MM.
That said, if he helps us win a flag then it will be best deal since Jolly & Beams. The closer your list is to being capable of winning a flag the more you should be prepared to pay for list gains and if all that happens is Beams replaces Aish or someone similar then that's a big enough improvement to beat WCE based on the 2 finals we played against them. We will need to improve because WCE will regain Gaff in a midfield that already beat ours 3 times, Richmond have gained Lynch and Melbourne will add May both of which address shortfalls for them. Even ignoring anyone else the competition for a flag has improved.

 

[MayneSpudHunter]

Lets do a pick breakdown over the cost of beams over time
Pick point value:

2014:

OUT:

Dayne Beams

Pick 67 (69 points)

IN:

Pick 5 (1878 points)

Pick 25 (756 points)

Jack Crisp est. Pick 45 in 2014 (347 points)

beams cost the brions 2912 points (pick 1 equivalent)

2018

OUT:

Pick 18 (985 points)

Future First est. 16 (1067 points)

Pick 56 (194 points)



IN:

Dayne Beams

Pick 41 (412 points)

Pick 44 (362 points)

For us this year beams cost us 1472 points pick 7 equivalent.



So if we look at the trade in context, a four year loan of Beams cost them 1440 points, again a pick 9-10 equivalent, in which we also picked up JDG (worth pick 2-3) and Crisp (risen to a late first rounder in 2018). Overall, we stayed ahead of the lions, but I would have though Beams should have cost us pick 12-16 equivalent, it is dependent on how we perform next year. If we finish in the top 2-3, then the value of beams will drop significantly.


Currently we hold Picks 41,44,51 and 57 (null pick, i would think we will trade this for pick point value), giving us 1033 points. with the 20% discount, this allows us to pick up IQ and kelly for pick 12-14 equivalent, which should be enough hoping IQ gets a bid late first and kelly late second. overall was a sound trade given we were looking for points, not picks.

 

[MarkT2]

Think Siddey is probably the likely candidate to move to half-back/wing role as he dominated last years finals series from there.

Pendles is a good ball user but probably doesn't put enough defensive pressure on for me, Scharenberg plays that role better than Pendles imo.

Scharenberg is probably irrelevent unfortunately. Too many knee recos and in any case based on actual performances he's not the player we hoped for when we drafted him.

 

[Kipz]

Kipz thinks this trade was done late at night due to the fact you can't show certain things while the kids are up. If you look at what we got when he left and what we've given up to get him back..
Kipz also thinks it will land us a Rayner/Witherden etc in a few years. Absolute bargain LOL thanks for playing Brisbane

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I think we over paid. I think we too often over pay these days after being to reluctant to pay tote odds for a long time under MM.
That said, if he helps us win a flag then it will be best deal since Jolly & Beams. The closer your list is to being capable of winning a flag the more you should be prepared to pay for list gains and if all that happens is Beams replaces Aish or someone similar then that's a bid enough improvement to beat WCE based on the 2 finals we played against them. We will need to improve because WCE will regain Gaff in a midfield that already beat ours 3 times, Richmond have gained Lynch and Melbourne will add May both of which address shortfalls for them. Even ignoring anyone else the competition for a flag has improved.

It’s effectively pick 16 for beams assuming we finish top four next year. That’s not really overs.

Salary-wise we should have loads of cap next year with many of Reid Goldsack Dunn Greenwood Varcoe Wells and Mayne potentially playing their final year or two of afl football.

So having missed out on a kpp, we can relaunch at the trade table next year.

 

[jackcass]

Depends on your view on what he's worth. AA quality goal kicking mids never come cheap. I'd always prefer to take a longer view and go to the draft, trade on identified needs. I pretty much always think we overpay on trades, not just because of the deal itself, but because these trades generally give you longer term issues within the list.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Depends on your view on what he's worth. AA quality goal kicking mids never come cheap. I'd always prefer to take a longer view and go to the draft, trade on identified needs. I pretty much always think we overpay on trades, not just because of the deal itself, but because these trades generally give you longer term issues within the list.

But we DID go to the draft. We will still get our targetted player with the 18 pick we traded away.

Agree we didnt trade on need, we did something better. We traded in a player on talent. Roughead helps solve the need issue even if temporarily. Still work to be done in the big man department but that can wait until 2019.

 

[jackcass]

But we DID go to the draft. We will still get our targetted player with the 18 pick we traded away.

Agree we didnt trade on need, we did something better. We traded in a player on talent. Roughead helps solve the need issue even if temporarily. Still work to be done in the big man department but that can wait until 2019.

Not yet we haven't. I'm not convinced IQ will attract a bid in the 1st round, time will tell.

 

[DaVe86]

We only overpaid on paper.

When you take away the hyperbole that we traded 2 first round picks, you realise that this year we still have a 1st and a 2nd round pick coming in.

Our trading has ensured we will get Quaynor with enough points. We may go into deficit with Kelly, but hopefully we still have some points left over. We may also be able to do some draft day trading to get a few more points if we play it right.

Given the likelihood we go into deficit, next years first pick could foreseeably have been in the 20s anyway. Given that Wells will retire end of next year, we'll also have a bit more salary cap space so we could attack free agency harder.

The trade was a win.

I'm not convinced on Dayne Beams and I have my reservations about him. But in terms of the actual trade, it was pretty much bang on. The only thing we could have done better was maybe get a pick in the 30s and a pick in the 40s. But the 2 picks in the 40s is reasonable. It was pretty much the trade I proposed earlier in the week, so I'm pretty happy with the outcome.

 

[DaVe86]

Not yet we haven't. I'm not convinced IQ will attract a bid in the 1st round, time will tell.

I don't care where the bid comes. Lower the better!

All that matter is where we rate them. The desire to trade pick 18 indicates to me that we feel a bid will come earlier...or we at least rate him that highly. Most draft experts have Quaynor top 20 and Kelly top 30. So that's 2 solid picks regardless of where the bid comes.

There's no doubt in my mind we had 3 objectives this trade period....in this order:

1. Re-sign Moore and Langdon
2. Retain enough points for Quaynor and Kelly
3. Secure Beams.


We've done all that....although we are still a bit short of points which means we probably still go into deficit.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Not yet we haven't. I'm not convinced IQ will attract a bid in the 1st round, time will tell.

If IQ was a regular draftee and we had pick 18, we'd probably pick him anyway.

If it so happens that hes NOT picked first round then thats a good thing not a bad thing. It just means we get him cheaper. Either way he and Kelly and a couple of other academy kids fit the brief of making sure we are bringing youth in. It doesnt matter that they arent coming to us via the national draft or via the academy route. We are getting them (or at least, two minimum)

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I don't care where the bid comes. Lower the better!

All that matter is where we rate them. The desire to trade pick 18 indicates to me that we feel a bid will come earlier...or we at least rate him that highly. Most draft experts have Quaynor top 20 and Kelly top 30. So that's 2 solid picks regardless of where the bid comes.

There's no doubt in my mind we had 3 objectives this trade period....in this order:

1. Re-sign Moore and Langdon
2. Retain enough points for Quaynor and Kelly
3. Secure Beams.


We've done all that....although we are still a bit short of points which means we probably still go into deficit.

Spot on.

And midseason the priority was to sign DeGoey. The club has been very measured and calculating in setting its list priorities.

 

[Thedivided]

Not too worried besides the treloar year we've done a very good little rebuild draft wise and trade, we have lots of young guys and getting 2 guys this year that could be rated first rounders I think we're in good shape.

 

[Lockyer24]

You don't overpay if you win a flag. So let's win one

 

[doppleganger]

How did the draft guru Gary Buckenarra rate our draft performance?

Why would you care what about a ‘draft experts’ opinion on list management trade decisions?

 

[jackcass]

I don't care where the bid comes. Lower the better!

All that matter is where we rate them. The desire to trade pick 18 indicates to me that we feel a bid will come earlier...or we at least rate him that highly. Most draft experts have Quaynor top 20 and Kelly top 30. So that's 2 solid picks regardless of where the bid comes.

There's no doubt in my mind we had 3 objectives this trade period....in this order:

1. Re-sign Moore and Langdon
2. Retain enough points for Quaynor and Kelly
3. Secure Beams.


We've done all that....although we are still a bit short of points which means we probably still go into deficit.

Not too convinced about your stated objectives. Doubt Beams was even on our radar until quite late. Langdon's re-signing was delayed which may equally suggest he was a player we'd be prepared to sacrifice for the right outcome (ie: Lynch, May). Hine was less than effusive on IQ & Kelly earlier in the year and I'd like to know who these purported draft experts are. Cal Twomey?

From the few mock drafts I've read, I think the lack of KPP types in that potential 10-30 range means it's incredibly even in terms of talent and predominantly midfield prospects. Where IQ fits into that time will tell and it'll the needs of individual teams that come into play. Kelly as a genuine KPP type might actually attract earlier attention.