List Mgmt. Carlton's 2019 Draft Thread

[slashin_velvet]

i hold SOS in high esteem, what i find questionable, is what i questioned. That a poster, regardless of how Kemps career turns out, will view SOSs dealing to get him as his best work.

If Kemp turns to a gun, its the perfect trade, a heist even.

If Kemp doesn't come on or is constantly plagued by injury, then it will be the opposite.

This is about the Kemp deal, nothing to do with anything else.

The outcome doesn't determine whether a deal is "good work".

C.Curnow for example was turning Tom Bell and a second rounder into a 1st where we got him. Through that lense, it's not a bad deal...but given his injuries and the fact we traded with the dogs who took Dunkley, then it doesn't look as good in hindsight.

The deal itself was good, the current outcome may not fall in our favour, but that's more injury luck than anything.

 

[BluStreak]

Kemp was a preferred target. The deal to change pick 9 in to two picks and still get that target is what is being admired.

 

[HARKER]

The outcome doesn't determine whether a deal is "good work".

C.Curnow for example was turning Tom Bell and a second rounder into a 1st where we got him. Through that lense, it's not a bad deal...but given his injuries and the fact we traded with the dogs who took Dunkley, then it doesn't look as good in hindsight.

The deal itself was good, the current outcome may not fall in our favour, but that's more injury luck than anything.

Exactly. There are two parts to the matter.
One is for the outcome of the plans and the other is for the outcome of the player/s

e.g. The club rated Stocker at #6 and it was up to Silvagni to broker the deal for which he did with Adelaide.
Net outcome was Stocker (who we rated at #6), Kemp (who at one stage we had in the top 5) and Philp for pick #6 and GWS's future 1st.

Silvagni knew how to manufacture deals. He knew how to make things happen and it wasn't his fault Coniglio nor Papley didn't eventuate.
I'm glad we didn't succumb to a plan B that could have seen us part with two first rounders for Wines, even though this may have suited Teague.

Anyway, isn't it time for the 2020 Draft thread? Arr0w ?

 

[Jeremias]

Sometimes all you can do is shake your head and laugh.

I cannot believe there are some who think the manoeuvre to effectively trade Bell for Curnow wasn't an outstanding trade.

I'm a massive Dunkley fan but that he was taken with one of the picks we traded is largely inconsequential, as there is and has been absolutely no indication that we would have taken him.

 

[ferrisb]

I'm a massive Dunkley fan but that he was taken with one of the picks we traded is largely inconsequential, as there is and has been absolutely no indication that we would have taken him.

I am also a massive Dunkley fan but IMO Dunkley is the exact kind of player that SOS would have overlooked anyway...

 

[The Bighouse]

IMO Dunkley is the exact kind of player that SOS would have overlooked anyway...

Kyle Dunkley....

 

[Eiffel 65]

Kemp was a preferred target. The deal to change pick 9 in to two picks and still get that target is what is being admired.

Would have been content with Kemp at pick 9 (pick 11 on draft night).

 

[TerryWallet]

Good recruiting needs a good dose of luck too.

The interesting thing about the Doggies snaring Dunkley with our traded pick is that they bid on Ben Keays with that pick first and when that bid was matched they took Dunkley.

 

[HARKER]

Would have been content with Kemp at pick 9 (pick 11 on draft night).

Me too, but did get seduced by Stephens as being the better fit for us but he went at #5, so we weren't realistically a chance at any point.

SOS hung out with Gibbs when many could not have done so and was rewarded with 2 first rounders.
Understanding the landscape to get Kemp took a lot of guts and again, I don't think many could have done so.
Not falling to GC's demands for Martin also took guts and he still found a way to get him for zero trade value.

Not going to be easy to replace SOS when it comes to manufacturing deals.

 

[ferrisb]

Good recruiting needs a good dose of luck too.

The interesting thing about the Doggies snaring Dunkley with our traded pick is that they bid on Ben Keays with that pick first and when that bid was matched they took Dunkley.

We recruited Eddie Betts in the PSD, which was a master-stroke.

But that genius was equal part luck, as we really wanted Trent Knobel, who the tigers picked two spots before us. Thank F...

 

[DangerousD]

The outcome doesn't determine whether a deal is "good work".

C.Curnow for example was turning Tom Bell and a second rounder into a 1st where we got him. Through that lense, it's not a bad deal...but given his injuries and the fact we traded with the dogs who took Dunkley, then it doesn't look as good in hindsight.

The deal itself was good, the current outcome may not fall in our favour, but that's more injury luck than anything.

I disagree, the deal is only good if we get good value.

I love the Curnow deal, mostly because I think we got the drafts best player and in the manner in which we did.

but if we picked a guy, who played 10 games and was never seen again, then the deal is a failure.

 

[BlueGum]

I disagree, the deal is only good if we get good value.

I love the Curnow deal, mostly because I think we got the drafts best player and in the manner in which we did.

but if we picked a guy, who played 10 games and was never seen again, then the deal is a failure.

I disagree with that DD. The deal is good when it puts us in the best position to get value. The outcome comes about with the input of other departments - like conditioning, development, coaching and injury management.

 

[slashin_velvet]

I disagree, the deal is only good if we get good value.

I love the Curnow deal, mostly because I think we got the drafts best player and in the manner in which we did.

but if we picked a guy, who played 10 games and was never seen again, then the deal is a failure.

The deal itself has to be assessed independent of other factors out of control of the deal makers.

If you take a player with pick 20 who you rated as top 5, who then has an impact injury that was not foreseeable and ruins their career after 10 games does not make the initial deal bad.

 

[DangerousD]

I disagree with that DD. The deal is good when it puts us in the best position to get value. The outcome comes about with the input of other departments - like conditioning, development, coaching and injury management.

we will have to agree to disagree, I do though however agree that if SOS rated Kemp highly and traded down knowing he’ll be Availble later, then it’s a great deal.

my sticking point is, if Kemp doesn’t come on, then the initial value was wrong. Or that the other clubs who passed on him were right and we didn’t see what they all did.

 

[Stamos]

I disagree, the deal is only good if we get good value.

I love the Curnow deal, mostly because I think we got the drafts best player and in the manner in which we did.

but if we picked a guy, who played 10 games and was never seen again, then the deal is a failure.

Whether Charlie (heaven forbid) never gets over his knee and doesn’t play again, or he goes on to win the next 10 Colemans and a stack of flags, the deal is exactly the same.

 

[DangerousD]

The deal itself has to be assessed independent of other factors out of control of the deal makers.

If you take a player with pick 20 who you rated as top 5, who then has an impact injury that was not foreseeable and ruins their career after 10 games does not make the initial deal bad.

seeing as though Kemp is recovering from an ACL and was passed by many despite his talent, I don’t think it’s un foreseeable.

In most circumstances I agree with your assessment, that the outcome can be bad although the deal/process was right, just struggling in this case as I feel more risk has been taken.

 

[DangerousD]

Whether Charlie (heaven forbid) never gets over his knee and doesn’t play again, or he goes on to win the next 10 Colemans and a stack of flags, the deal is exactly the same.

the deal is the same, yes. The value we get from the deal is totally different.

 

[slashin_velvet]

seeing as though Kemp is recovering from an ACL and was passed by many despite his talent, I don’t think it’s un foreseeable.

In most circumstances I agree with your assessment, that the outcome can be bad although the deal/process was right, just struggling in this case as I feel more risk has been taken.

I'm not saying the Kemp choice was a good one...nor was my hypothesis about him - I was talking more broadly about risk/reward and assessing deals

I agree the Kemp choice is a bigger risk than flanders, but now it comes down to if the combination of Kemp and Philp exceeds Flanders in isolation (in the same way Dunkley and Collins in combination should be compared to Curnow and with Collins in our VFL team, it's now just Dunkley v Curnow).

 

[Stamos]

the deal is the same, yes. The value we get from the deal is totally different.

But that doesn’t alter whether the deal was good or not

 

[DangerousD]

But that doesn’t alter whether the deal was good or not

imo for a deal to be good, you need to get good value out of the players selected.

mostly I don’t think you can judge a deal until a few years after the fact.

 

[tiger_tough]

FWIW - if there are a group of supporters over the last 2 years with serious expertise in “circle jerks” - it would be Tiger supporters.

Premierships will do that.

 

[HARKER]

Premierships will do that.

You have a point

As if the CFC supporters won't be unbearable if and when, success comes our way. Have we forgotten?

 

[Red_man2008]

Exactly. There are two parts to the matter.
One is for the outcome of the plans and the other is for the outcome of the player/s

e.g. The club rated Stocker at #6 and it was up to Silvagni to broker the deal for which he did with Adelaide.
Net outcome was Stocker (who we rated at #6), Kemp (who at one stage we had in the top 5) and Philp for pick #6 and GWS's future 1st.

Silvagni knew how to manufacture deals. He knew how to make things happen and it wasn't his fault Coniglio nor Papley didn't eventuate.
I'm glad we didn't succumb to a plan B that could have seen us part with two first rounders for Wines, even though this may have suited Teague.

Anyway, isn't it time for the 2020 Draft thread? Arr0w ?

No need to include another 1st round pick in the decision. It’s basically pick 4 in your comment.

 

[DirkDiggler]

Me too, but did get seduced by Stephens as being the better fit for us but he went at #5, so we weren't realistically a chance at any point.

SOS hung out with Gibbs when many could not have done so and was rewarded with 2 first rounders.
Understanding the landscape to get Kemp took a lot of guts and again, I don't think many could have done so.
Not falling to GC's demands for Martin also took guts and he still found a way to get him for zero trade value.

Not going to be easy to replace SOS when it comes to manufacturing deals.

Don't agree with your last comment Harks. Could you imagine the heat the club would have faced had they conceded draft pick no 9 for an underachieving GC player. We were fortunate enough to be well placed in the PSD to facilitate Martin's acquisition. SOS or no SOS it wouldn't have mattered.

It would be fair to say SOS had mixed success handling the Gibbs trade with distinction yet stuffing up with Saad showing little interest in him.

 

[Sweet Seventeen]

Don't agree with your last comment Harks. Could you imagine the heat the club would have faced had they conceded draft pick no 9 for an underachieving GC player. We were fortunate enough to be well placed in the PSD to facilitate Martin's acquisition. SOS or no SOS it wouldn't have mattered.

It would be fair to say SOS had mixed success handling the Gibbs trade with distinction yet stuffing up with Saad showing little interest in him.

Yeah, Saad will go on to do SFA. IMO. Turnover merchant.