Bic
Norm Smith Medallist
- Nov 20, 2009
- 6,746
- 7,092
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Melbourne City, OKC
What have we done in the past to suggest we won't satisfy GWS?
Seems we've traded pretty well in the past together.
Traded Caleb Marchbank [traded to Carlton w/ Pickett, 2017 Rd 2 pk for Picks 45, 58 and Geelong's 2017 1st]
- Thread starter bird_man
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Seems we've traded pretty well in the past together.
grouse mate
Premiership Player
Absolutely would. Just because he has been stuck in the NEAFL is not indicative of his ability, how many clubs would have starting 18 KP fwds at 22 yo that would get a game in front of Cameron, Patton and Lobb.
And that is why Marchbank will most likely be at Carlton next year ...but ... St Kilda were/are very keen on Caleb and put a fair bit of work into trying to secure his nomination.
We lost out to you guys as you previously laid some very good groundwork to attract him to Carlton.
When he nominated Carlton we were the only other team he was considering and as I stated previously, if for any reason negotiations fail then St Kilda will be next in line.
When was the last time that happened?
Why are you wasting your time hoping for something so unlikely?
Surely Carlton would take that. 10 pick downgrade from 5. Add two players who could be key position holders for next 8-10'years.
- Sep 26, 2004
- 47,996
- 65,049
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #1,307
We may be able to get Marchbank & Stewart for a few picks in the 2nd round.
Why would we deviate from that and downgrade 10 places in the first round?
I'm sure Carlton would. I'm not sure GWS would.
Carlton fans point out the Jaksch trade, but the reality is some come off, some don't. SOS may not have rated that trade for Carlton - but that maybe because he didn't rate Jaksch or Whiley. If he views Marchbank + the steak knives differently, that would change the equation.
But I think the real issue is, will GWS even rate second rounders given what they've already got? And if not, how much will they overpay (if at all) just to get the deal done for #5? I think there will be an element of overpayment, but I'm not sure how much. #15 back would rate Marchbank (if traded alone) as only worth pick #25 or so. Unless Carlton is soaking up salary cap (very possible), that seems unlikely.
Carslile? You mean the guy that had a possible lengthy suspension out of the game(which ended up happening).
Buggered if I want the club handing over pick 5 in any deal for Marchbank. Guy was drafted much higher than initially expected and has been injured for years both sides of the draft. As much as I'd like to give him a go, if it comes at this price then just forget and head to the draft please Carlton.
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #1,311
And that has exactly what to do with exposed form? I wasn't the one who brought up Carlisle incidentally but let's not suggest the values are comparable.
Marchbank & Shiel.........with #15 thrown back to us for good measure?
I don't see us giving up pick #5 this year, but next years first is a whole different thing.
That's not to say to give it away but the CFC do need to get a better spread of players this year after what was achieved last year.
Of course it could just Marchbank and helping out GWS elsewhere for next years second, which could also be in play.
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #1,313
Let's not fall into the trap of using AFL points to determine value on anyone other than academy or father/son selections. They really over value later picks. Top 5 picks still have a premium.
This year we still have a concensus top 5-7 players and the chance of a couple of possible number 1s sliding to 5. Then it evens out again where players could go anywhere from 8-25.
If Stewart is so good then how come when Cameron, Patton and Lobb are injured/suspended he still can't get a game? List clogger. No improvement on Jaksch, who can't even get a game for us.
You want pick 5 you need to put up something decent. I wouldn't worry because I can't see us trading it.
You want pick 5 you need to put up something decent. I wouldn't worry because I can't see us trading it.
For some reason quoting isn't working for me. This is aimed at The Old Dark Navy's.
I'd be the first to say that the points system isn't perfect. But it is the only objective approach we have to rating picks. Otherwise two people can simply become bogged down on if pick X is worth A + B or not, with no hope of any resolution. I'd also note two things:
I'd be the first to say that the points system isn't perfect. But it is the only objective approach we have to rating picks. Otherwise two people can simply become bogged down on if pick X is worth A + B or not, with no hope of any resolution. I'd also note two things:
- If the clubs use the picks (and we know they at least sometimes do), then it doesn't matter how inaccurate it is, it becomes the basis for comparison. A bit like the Black-Scholes formula being used to price all options despite people knowing some of the underlying assumptions are, ahem, dodgy (at least some of the time).
- That the system under value's virtually every pick from about #2 to #29 or so. If you look at the fitting in the original document "Bidding System Review - F/S and Academy" from May 2015, slide 6, the fit is too high for that period. I don't know why they did that, but I'm suspicious the raw analysis would have indicated too much value for #1, and that the value of other earlier picks wasn't as high as they wanted relative to the tail. Anyway. The fact remains, it indicates the bidding system over-rates #2 to #25 odd reasonably consistently. So #5 and #15 are probably reasonably similarly underpriced, so the comparison of point values mostly holds.
- I agree that subjective data on the draft (such as the evenness of the top 5) will impact value. So will rating Marchbank. This of course is why we have so much grey area!
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #1,316
I'd rather look at the quality of player available at each pick and the chances of becoming elite. We need quality.
Injuries have got to be a concern for the guy. Suffered a few serious injuries before he was even drafted, and has missed significant time with the Giants. Could just be bad luck, and he could go 10+ years pretty injury free, but the doubts must at least be there.
RupetFan
Club Legend
From what I've heard the money that Carlton offered Marchbank... I think Carlton will eventully give up Pick 5.
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #1,319
Not a chance massive dollars have been offered. We are not doing business that way anymore ... at least at this early stage of our rebuild.
RupetFan
Club Legend
Collingwood offered Marchbank 600k a season over 3-4 and Carlton offered more then that. Take how you want too.
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #1,321
Okay. I will take it with a grain of salt.
BlueWoof_#39
Senior List
That's the biggest load of crap I've heard. Cripps and Weitering don't even get that much, so it's almost impossible he was offered more than 300k.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Oct 4, 2013
- 1,670
- 2,639
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Who is your source? Sounds like they need to get OFF the sauce.
EDIT: You know it's 600k but don't know if it's 3 or 4 years?
Bokonon
Cancelled
- May 3, 2016
- 4,376
- 2,703
- AFL Club
- GWS
ShielMarchbank & Shiel.........with #15 thrown back to us for good measure?
I don't see us giving up pick #5 this year, but next years first is a whole different thing.
That's not to say to give it away but the CFC do need to get a better spread of players this year after what was achieved last year.
Of course it could just Marchbank and helping out GWS elsewhere for next years second, which could also be in play.
LOL
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #1,325
He was kidding. Making a point that 5 could be on the table for the right price.
