Bluemour Discussion Thread XVIII - Please Sir, Can We Have More?

[reubsblues]

I know he's probably not coming our way but I think Zac Jones would be a perfect addition to our team, he's hard and has that great breakaway pace. Would love to see us have a go at him

I'd give this yrs and next yrs first for him and papley

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I'm open to tabling two first rounders for Papley, but there needs to be a fair bit coming back.Not sure on their upcoming academy prospects, if they don't have any Heeney/Mills/Blakey types in the next two drafts then they'll likely prioritise early picks to facilitate a mini-rebuild/rejuvenation of their list.

Something like:

Pick 8 + 2020 first rounder (~6-12) + 2020 third rounder (~42-48)
for
Papley + Cameron + Pick 23 + 2020 second rounder (~24-30)

Draft index then has Pap/Cam valued around Pick 5/6.
Carlton get a gun small forward, a mature 2nd ruck and two decent second round picks for other trades.
Sydney get an extra first rounder in the next two drafts, but lose their second rounders. They also pick up a future third rounder.

That, of course, hinges on which other players are on our shopping list and how realistic they are. I'd only be trading out those two firsts if other well-progressed deals don't require them.

Cogs + Papley + Martin would have been a phenomenal off-season, but if we're being realistic any one of those acquisitions represents a significant improvement of our list. Throw in a few names from Ellis, Gray, Amon, Cutler, Cox etc. and we'd be going into 2020 with a stronger senior side and a better second tier to draw from as required.

They will apparently have two good kids coming through next season so I think they would take pick 8 and a future second as they would want the points for next year.
If they are 100% on two firsts for Papley and we could get their pick 23 back then it may not be the worst deal if we then on trade that for Martin, Langdon or similar.
Two good players for two first rounders may be overs but not by much, if at all.

My only worry is if we miss on Cogs and get say Martin and Papley for two firsts then we get to this point next season and think that a couple of Setterfield, Dow, Kennedy, LOB, SPS, Fisher aren’t going to make it as full time AFL mids then we have made things hard for ourselves. Though I’m not much of a fan of Ellis this is where it makes sense chasing him. Also this is why we need to keep turning over the list and taking several picks in the draft to find a couple of diamonds in the rough.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Thanks for your honestly. In future I think I’ll be more selective sharing what I know so it comes across a little more consistent

All good mate - consistency is always a good starting point.

If you do know something, and you're in a position to share it without putting someone else's balls in a vice, I'm sure you'll be met with appreciation and cynicism in equal measure. The important thing is to share for the right reasons - because you think the community here will benefit from the knowledge, and because nobody will be hurt by the act of sharing the knowledge. You don't need to impress us, you don't need a stack of "likes", just be part of the community and enjoy the ride.

 

[I bleed Blue]

2 first round picks is too high for Papley.

That's where Sydney will start negotiations.

SOS will start lower. They will meet somewhere in the middle.

 

[KohPhi]

I dont get this '2 x 1sts are too high for Papley'

Id happily throw the Swans our pick 8 this year, and a future 1st for him (with decent change coming back, like a pick swap this year, and their future 2nd).

He's a gun and exactly what we need.

Abso ****ing lutely!!

Hawks want someone... BANG! they trade, and it's done.
If we are desperate for Papley, BANG, get it done. If it costs 2 firsts with something half decent coming back, then so be it.

If we don't do it, someone else will.

 

[Malifice]

Except what you are proposing is not to straight firsts.

I doubt that's what the Swans are asking for (2 x 1sts, first and final offer or GTFO).

If they're saying '2 x 1sts' now that's just the starting point (like with us and Gibbs). If I was the club, I'd have an understanding with the Swans that that seems about right, but we would want some hefty change to be coming back our way (like a second or two - to be thrashed out in Trade week), and get the Swans on board with the trade.

A player like Papley is as good as anyone we're likey to draft this year with 8, fills a definate need, and makes us a much stronger side straight away. He's not old by any stretch of the imagination. I would expect further improvement in the list next year, with finals a possibility.

Two mid-late firsts (with decent change coming back) is reasonable.

If we want to be a destination club, the ability to get the trade done no fuss is as important as on field success and contract terms in attracting players.

 

[Opine]

Thanks for your honestly. In future I think I’ll be more selective sharing what I know so it comes across a little more consistent

KC, its your inconsistency that lights up the forum with rays of sunshine. Don't change, I like reading your posts, they're fun.

 

[BlueJet]

hope he enjoys playing in Ballarat if he does go to Footscrazy

JMO but Ballarat>Marvel.

On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[T2B_]

Honestly Paps would likely help improve us from a list balance and needs point of view than Cogs. He really is exactly the type of player we need. And badly.

 

[thylacine60]

KC, its your inconsistency that lights up the forum with rays of sunshine. Don't change, I like reading your posts, they're fun.

could we have a quiet word outside, onions?

 

[Opine]

Honestly Paps would likely help improve us from a list balance and needs point of view than Cogs. He really is exactly the type of player we need. And badly.

 

[Opine]

could we have a quiet word outside, onions?

I'm in trouble.

 

[SurreyBlue]

2 first round picks is too high for Papley.

That's where Sydney will start negotiations.

SOS will start lower. They will meet somewhere in the middle.

Pick 8 is too much.

 

[Blue__Balls]

KC's got a mixed history of suggesting inside knowledge, while also pleading with recognised ITK posters for information. I'm not suggesting there is no club connection on KC's end, but if there is I don't see why he'd be chasing strangers on the internet for more info. It doesn't pass muster for me.

If I'm wrong, I'll wear that. But if he does have connections, and does want to share info with us, while there's not a strictly "right" way to do it, there are certainly wrong ways.

I'm not immune to the "cynicism" I've mentioned. I'm damned cynical of half you lot. That's my default position, sitting the fence and trying to judge context as well as content before deciding which way I'll fall. In this instance, the mixed messages from KC warrant some attention, and I've done so in a way that I hope will give KC cause to reflect.

 

[SurreyBlue]

Honestly Paps would likely help improve us from a list balance and needs point of view than Cogs. He really is exactly the type of player we need. And badly.

No way. That is just plain wrong.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

I doubt that's what the Swans are asking for (2 x 1sts, first and final offer or GTFO).

If they're saying '2 x 1sts' now that's just the starting point (like with us and Gibbs). If I was the club, I'd have an understanding with the Swans that that seems about right, but we would want some hefty change to be coming back our way (like a second or two - to be thrashed out in Trade week), and get the Swans on board with the trade.

A player like Papley is as good as anyone we're likey to draft this year with 8, fills a definate need, and makes us a much stronger side straight away. He's not old by any stretch of the imagination. I would expect further improvement in the list next year, with finals a possibility.

Two mid-late firsts (with decent change coming back) is reasonable.

If we want to be a destination club, the ability to get the trade done no fuss is as important as on field success and contract terms in attracting players.

Spot on. Devon Miles would get the deal done ! (I own The entire Knight Rider series on DVD )

A pragmatist would do the deal that Mal suggests.

We ain't talking about a washed up Michael Mansfield or heaven forbid, Steve O'Reilly here.

 

[ferrisb]

View attachment 735176

Mike Wazowsky ockerts

 

[T2B_]

No way. That is just plain wrong.

Ploise explain.

 

[SHOWEY]

We don’t know he is staying yet. I think he is still torn.

 

[LanceRomance]

Pick 8 is too much.

Agreed. A top 10 pick for an in contract papley should be enough.

 

[SurreyBlue]

Ploise explain.

Coniglio is the type of player we need more then a Papley. Mature midfielder who can support Cripps & Murphy, great defensive mindset and can kick goals.
Can't see how a small forward can beat that.

Martin is more valuable then Papley. More of a high half forward / midfielder as well.

 

[Juddernaut08]

Coniglio is the type of player we need more then a Papley. Mature midfielder who can support Cripps & Murphy, great defensive mindset and can kick goals.
Can't see how a small forward can beat that.

Martin is more valuable then Papley. More of a high half forward / midfielder as well.

No. 100 times no.

Martin is not required. He's perhaps smarter/cleaner than the options we have, but Cuningham, LOB, SPS can all do what he does.

Papley is a genuine small forward. Our next best in this position is Polson. Papley is by far our greatest need IMO, not because of his talent but because of the lack of talent we have in his position.

Coniglio is easily the best player in the whole bunch, and will cost the cheapest from draft picks. He fills a need, but we have at least 3-4 prospects who project to eventually step up. We have no-one in that Papley role.

Get Papley...or at least another quality small forward. GET HIM!

 

[Blue__Balls]

No. 100 times no.

Martin is not required. He's perhaps smarter/cleaner than the options we have, but Cuningham, LOB, SPS can all do what he does.

Papley is a genuine small forward. Our next best in this position is Polson. Papley is by far our greatest need IMO, not because of his talent but because of the lack of talent we have in his position.

Coniglio is easily the best player in the whole bunch, and will cost the cheapest from draft picks. He fills a need, but we have at least 3-4 prospects who project to eventually step up. We have no-one in that Papley role.

Get Papley...or at least another quality small forward. GET HIM!

Not sure any of those three are particularly adept at outmarking an opponent. That's a definite point of difference with Martin.

He's a weird hybrid of McGovern and SPS, and it makes him a nightmare for opponents to match up one-on-one. Perfect player for us to play on a wing.

 

[footyfan1978]

You guys know you can just look at a poster's history on their profile, yeah...?

That was the work of minutes.

But yes...you are all on my list...

I take no pleasure in this

Careful what you post everyone or this is what he has planned next...

 

[Chism]

Thread bans will be incoming soon if the petty crap continues.

Thread has already been cleaned up multiple times and still posters want to go tit for tat with rubbish.

If you don’t like what someone says in a rumors thread on the Internet just grow up and ignore it, then move on without feeling the need to call them out for posts made weeks or days ago as things do change in the AFL player landscape side of things etc.