List Mgmt. Christmas comes early (Nov 28 - 19 sleeps) - Draftee discussion

[Keys]

Link to draft picks held by each club

 

[Bleedblueandgold]

Considering the Eagles' propensity to recruiting injury prone players, if we're interested in Wardlaw, can't see his hammy issues being a barrier to us drafting him.

 

[Mattman93]

So I've posted this in a few draft threads, but not getting much. Probably a question for the likes of WCE_phil / Monocle etc:

Can someone help me see what I'm supposed to be seeing in Tsatas? Hard to argue with the numbers, but, I dunno, everytime I watch him I'm just...unconvinced.

I see a receiver type who runs more one way than the other, has an albeit impressive knack of getting the ball and carrying it, and doesn't do anything particularly remarkable with it.

From the matches I've watched, I definitely can't see how anyone would want him over Sheezel, and I'd just about be more comfortable if we reached hard for someone like Mackenzie or Humphrey.

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

So with Taranto stating he wants to go to Richmond and possibly Hopper as well, what would a deal look like?

Taranto will get them at least pick 12. Could Tigers land both with picks 12, 19 and 30? If Bruhn goes to the Cats, GWS may also have 18.

What GWS need right now is talls. Cadman and Busslinger would be an ideal draft. No problems in drafting them at 2 and 3. They have a load of good quality mids and would still be able to get good value with 18 and 19.

Why not offer up our 2 for GWS via Tigers pick 12 plus GWS first rounder next year. I think next year's pick will be in single digits so anything lower that GWS finishing 8th is profit. We could also ask for a trade of 20 for 18 which would get us in before the priority and compo picks.

Alternatively, if we love this year and want to bring in more quality we go for 2 and 27 (assumed Rioli trade) for 12, 18 and 19.

 

[ziad]

So with Taranto stating he wants to go to Richmond and possibly Hopper as well, what would a deal look like?

Taranto will get them at least pick 12. Could Tigers land both with picks 12, 19 and 30? If Bruhn goes to the Cats, GWS may also have 18.

What GWS need right now is talls. Cadman and Busslinger would be an ideal draft. No problems in drafting them at 2 and 3. They have a load of good quality mids and would still be able to get good value with 18 and 19.

Why not offer up our 2 for GWS via Tigers pick 12 plus GWS first rounder next year. I think next year's pick will be in single digits so anything lower that GWS finishing 8th is profit. We could also ask for a trade of 20 for 18 which would get us in before the priority and compo picks.

Alternatively, if we love this year and want to bring in more quality we go for 2 and 27 (assumed Rioli trade) for 12, 18 and 19.

View attachment 1500935

sounds like a cunning plan to move out of the A grade market into the B & C grade market.

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

Trading out of the top 10 is tight.

 

[Doashuey]

So with Taranto stating he wants to go to Richmond and possibly Hopper as well, what would a deal look like?

Taranto will get them at least pick 12. Could Tigers land both with picks 12, 19 and 30? If Bruhn goes to the Cats, GWS may also have 18.

What GWS need right now is talls. Cadman and Busslinger would be an ideal draft. No problems in drafting them at 2 and 3. They have a load of good quality mids and would still be able to get good value with 18 and 19.

Why not offer up our 2 for GWS via Tigers pick 12 plus GWS first rounder next year. I think next year's pick will be in single digits so anything lower that GWS finishing 8th is profit. We could also ask for a trade of 20 for 18 which would get us in before the priority and compo picks.

Alternatively, if we love this year and want to bring in more quality we go for 2 and 27 (assumed Rioli trade) for 12, 18 and 19.

View attachment 1500935

Not for me. We havent had a top 10 pick in years, let alone a top 3. I like our chances of getting a genuine game changer with pick 2 than all of 12, 18 and 19. Pick 2 for a pick in the top 8 and low teens maybe. but wouldn't consider pushing back 10 places with our first. We need high quality and the pointy end is where its at.

 

[briztoon]

I think you should always draft based on best available regardless of need, at least in the first 2 rounds.

The players we draft this year will be in their prime come 2027-2031. Who knows what the game will look like then? 200cm might be considered average for a KPP by then.

Here goes the same story again.

I attended the Lions draft function last year, and one of our recruiters gave a good talk about drafting for need as opposed to drafting best talent available.

Regardless what the Lions said publicly last year leading up to the draft, about drafting best players available at our first two picks, we were definitely drafting for need.

He went on to give examples of what happens if you draft best player available, especially with early picks.

More often you end up with a team stacked with midfielders, and he highlighted GWS as an example, where they just have way to many quality mids, that even pushing some to the flanks, they can’t play them all, and eventually they will lose some.


Now you are currently at a different position than GWS, where you probably need players in every position, except for tall defender, but it’s still possible you could go the best player available at your first few picks, and fill different needs.

But it’s also possible that at your first three picks, the best players available are mids, maybe inside mids. Especially if a few of the other teams prioritise other needs.

 

[dinnaz]

So I've posted this in a few draft threads, but not getting much. Probably a question for the likes of WCE_phil / Monocle etc:

Can someone help me see what I'm supposed to be seeing in Tsatas? Hard to argue with the numbers, but, I dunno, everytime I watch him I'm just...unconvinced.

I see a receiver type who runs more one way than the other, has an albeit impressive knack of getting the ball and carrying it, and doesn't do anything particularly remarkable with it.

From the matches I've watched, I definitely can't see how anyone would want him over Sheezel, and I'd just about be more comfortable if we reached hard for someone like Mackenzie or Humphrey.

I think this year goes down to individual recruiters and how they rate different things. Upside, performance, leadership, go home factor and so on. I'm sure there are metrics that clubs would have and value that aren't common knowledge. Stats like % of 1 on 1 contests won, sprint efforts and even if someone is still growing- those type of things.

As all are top 10 level talented guys (rather than outright best in the draft like JHF/ Daicos last year) might have one slightly higher but take a needs approach. That's why WCE_phil is keen on splitting #2 and getting two high picks.

Tsatas has the best outside ability, and has attributes where he is quick, has good endurance, is a good size etc. In pure football terms is just a good player even though he is more of a winger at this stage and has a classic death by 1000 cuts style. (A bit like Gaff in 2010). His upside is interesting and is why he could go so high -where Gaff gets caught in a stoppage and throws it on a boot- Tsatas can get separation and burst away like Macrae, and could potentially add to his inside game.

Sheezel, Humphrey and Phillipou are great, Have well balanced games hit the scoreboard, can play forward and run through the middle too.
Id be unhappy if we reached for Jhye Clark who is just so solid, or Cam Mackenzie had a good champs but both are the next tier down in my eyes.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Here goes the same story again.

I attended the Lions draft function last year, and one of our recruiters gave a good talk about drafting for need as opposed to drafting best talent available.

Regardless what the Lions said publicly last year leading up to the draft, about drafting best players available at our first two picks, we were definitely drafting for need.

He went on to give examples of what happens if you draft best player available, especially with early picks.

More often you end up with a team stacked with midfielders, and he highlighted GWS as an example, where they just have way to many quality mids, that even pushing some to the flanks, they can’t play them all, and eventually they will lose some.


Now you are currently at a different position than GWS, where you probably need players in every position, except for tall defender, but it’s still possible you could go the best player available at your first few picks, and fill different needs.

But it’s also possible that at your first three picks, the best players available are mids, maybe inside mids. Especially if a few of the other teams prioritise other needs.

I think clubs need to have a bit of balance between picking for needs and picking best available, and tailor their decision to the circumstances. I don’t think you can have a rigid “always pick best available” or “always pick based on needs” philosophy.

Actually, as a general proposition I think having a rigid absolute rule like that is foolish in any aspect of life. And I’ve always said that and I’ll never resile from it.

 

[dinnaz]

I think clubs need to have a bit of balance between picking for needs and picking best available, and tailor their decision to the circumstances. I don’t think you can have a rigid “always pick best available” or “always pick based on needs” philosophy.

Actually, as a general proposition I think having a rigid absolute rule like that is foolish in any aspect of life. And I’ve always said that and I’ll never resile from it.

Last year GC taking Mac Andrew at #5 was a big needs pick. Admittedly they only took 1 live pick and got their man but there was still a lot of quality left at that point

 

[kane249]

Considering the Eagles' propensity to recruiting injury prone players, if we're interested in Wardlaw, can't see his hammy issues being a barrier to us drafting him.

Wardlaw and Petch can keep each other company in the injury rehab group

 

[Bender_]

I wonder what his business cards look like.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

View attachment 1501009

Doesn’t even have a watermark.

 

[WCE_phil]

So with Taranto stating he wants to go to Richmond and possibly Hopper as well, what would a deal look like?

Taranto will get them at least pick 12. Could Tigers land both with picks 12, 19 and 30? If Bruhn goes to the Cats, GWS may also have 18.

What GWS need right now is talls. Cadman and Busslinger would be an ideal draft. No problems in drafting them at 2 and 3. They have a load of good quality mids and would still be able to get good value with 18 and 19.

Why not offer up our 2 for GWS via Tigers pick 12 plus GWS first rounder next year. I think next year's pick will be in single digits so anything lower that GWS finishing 8th is profit. We could also ask for a trade of 20 for 18 which would get us in before the priority and compo picks.

Alternatively, if we love this year and want to bring in more quality we go for 2 and 27 (assumed Rioli trade) for 12, 18 and 19.

View attachment 1500935

If it ended up with GWS having 12 and 18. I would trade 2 and 20 for 12,18 and their future first. Gets us above any priority picks with pick 20 or potential compensation picks and I really rate next years first round. There's talent in all positions and multiple top Key Forward, HFF and Ruck talents to go with the mids. I don't see GWS flying up the ladder. I think 30 and Bruhn gets them Geelongs first.

They might finish 13th next year on say 9 wins but I don't see any higher than that which would still be a nominal pick 7 which i would still be stoked with and anything higher than that is a bonus. We would then likely be looking at pick 1, 7, 19 (next years second) and say (ports second next year). Say gold coast finally get into the finals and finish 8th they end up with pick 11. I would then happily look at trading next years second, and say ports pick 30 next year for GC first. They will certainly be able to split 19 for 2 second rounders thus giving them extra points they need for their two top academy picks next year. If we were to do this i'd look at seeing what GC response would be to making that trade this year. They will also likely try and move a couple of their seconds this year into next years draft.

I'd be happy with 12 in this draft. I still see one of Mackenzie, Hewett, Clark or even Philippou there. GWS address future needs in taking the top ranked key forward and key defender in this draft and still have 19 and 20 this year as well.

Trade our 2024 first into the 2023 draft for 2 mid tier first rounders. If we finish last (****ing likely) any team will take the best on our 2024 first for a couple of 10-20 picks.

12,18,26,38 this year. Hewett, Szybowski, Ryan, Foster. (Ryan is around 20 on a certain clubs board who have a pick between our 26 and 38 so if I / we want him it's pick 26)
1, 7 (could be higher), 10, 11 (could be a couple of picks higher or lower), 14 next year. Next year we get our supposed generational mid, our next gen key forward, two top line HFF/Mid and a top Ruck prospect.

I think Hough and Chesser become our next gen HBF's, Sheed and Kelly can stay on the wings, Ryan can play anywhere and is hard as nails (I think he replaces Cripps), Foster is a Forward/Ruck (who could well make it as a forward too btw) but I think could make a really great key defender. Hewett is a bit risky in that the difference between his best and worst is significant but he has genuine x-factor, Szybowski is a safe option for a hard at it inside mid with good hands and he is the type who always puts his best foot forward.

We chase hard at the end of 2024 for a couple of free agents, the club will have the money to throw around and a lot of young talent already.

It covers the board, all our main drafting needs and brings in 6 first round picks in 2 years to go with 26,38 this year and 37 next year.

It's highly speculative and highly unlikely to happen but it would give us 2 key drafts to really kickstart the rebuild, 2024 to chase free agents and back to normal service 2025 onwards.

 

[WCE_phil]

Also **** if we're as bad next year as this we will get a priority pick.

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

Here goes the same story again.

I attended the Lions draft function last year, and one of our recruiters gave a good talk about drafting for need as opposed to drafting best talent available.

Regardless what the Lions said publicly last year leading up to the draft, about drafting best players available at our first two picks, we were definitely drafting for need.

He went on to give examples of what happens if you draft best player available, especially with early picks.

More often you end up with a team stacked with midfielders, and he highlighted GWS as an example, where they just have way to many quality mids, that even pushing some to the flanks, they can’t play them all, and eventually they will lose some.


Now you are currently at a different position than GWS, where you probably need players in every position, except for tall defender, but it’s still possible you could go the best player available at your first few picks, and fill different needs.

But it’s also possible that at your first three picks, the best players available are mids, maybe inside mids. Especially if a few of the other teams prioritise other needs.

The drafting term of best available came out of the NFL. In that code, players expect to go where they are drafted and are given the advice of "Rent" while you play - you only "Buy" if it's a house for your Mamma or when you retire. The clubs have a lot more say in it. It does help that the salary cap is some 20 times that of what we have in the AFL. In addition, clubs initiate trades with players and so long as the player gets the $$, there is usually no drama..

I have had debates on this board that unless there is a huge gulf in talent, drafting for needs should be more important. This is especially true for interstate clubs as the market thin. However with Victoria clubs, they can afford to draft best available because of the massive go home factor for about half the draftees and there is a more fluid market for trading players within Victoria. This is not the case for outside of Victoria.

Go back to 2017 - Fremantle had picks 2 and 5 and went best available with Brayshaw and Cerra. Very few arguments that they were correct in their choice at the time with Best Available. I recall discussing with Monocle that they would have been so much better going Brayshaw or Cerra (not both) along with Naughton as they were in dire need for a tall. And this was when Naughton was viewed as an intercepting CHB. Now no need for posters to comment on the Cerra go home factor, that is not relevant in this scenario. How much better have Freo been with a duo that more suited their list build.

So if you look at the top 5 this year (excluding Ashcroft) of Busslinger, Cadman, Sheezel, Wardlaw and Tsatas, there is not a significant gap from 1 to 5.

So my thought that GWS would do well to get both Busslinger and Cadman this draft with picks 2 and 3 is a classic. Assuming we get a monster deal for pick 2, are Busslinger and Cadman best available at 2 and 3? No, but GWS have drafted too many mids and cannot fit them in. Busslinger and Cadman are more like 5 and 7 but due to teh shortage of talls, clubs will need to go earlier.

What does the draft mean for us? Well as briztoon points out, we need an injection into all lines. The draft is not offering a pointy end top 5 (Ashcroft aside) - they are good but not of the Walsh, Rowell, Anderson etc level. The highest value players in a draft are usually KPF and balanced mids. Not many of the former but a really good spread of balanced mids in the first 20 picks.

So despite the desire to just take the second best player, I see that as a choice between Tsatas and Sheezel. Neither are rocking my boat. If I could get one of Clark/Phillipou PLUS one of Hotton/McKenzie as a pair compared to only Tsatas OR Sheeezel, I would do it. Clark will probably need a pick around 6 to 8 and Hotton around 14 to 16. The trade of 7 and 15 for 2 is about right. There are other options similar to these 2 at the ranges stated which is why I am relaxed doing the split.

How often do we have WA players requesting a trade to go home? Not often. On our list is Kelly, Cripps and Yeo. Our last UFA I can recall was Xavier Ellis which was only because he got squeezed out of Hawthorn and got nervous thinking about working for Ross. Each year, there are a strong group of Vic players wanting to go home along with players who are free agents who already live in Melbourne, meaning most clubs can address their needs through these mechanisms.

 

[Bender_]

Doesn’t even have a watermark.

Yeah really unprofessional on his behalf.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

So with Taranto stating he wants to go to Richmond and possibly Hopper as well, what would a deal look like?

Taranto will get them at least pick 12. Could Tigers land both with picks 12, 19 and 30? If Bruhn goes to the Cats, GWS may also have 18.

What GWS need right now is talls. Cadman and Busslinger would be an ideal draft. No problems in drafting them at 2 and 3. They have a load of good quality mids and would still be able to get good value with 18 and 19.

Why not offer up our 2 for GWS via Tigers pick 12 plus GWS first rounder next year. I think next year's pick will be in single digits so anything lower that GWS finishing 8th is profit. We could also ask for a trade of 20 for 18 which would get us in before the priority and compo picks.

Alternatively, if we love this year and want to bring in more quality we go for 2 and 27 (assumed Rioli trade) for 12, 18 and 19.

View attachment 1500935

Taranto and hopper for 12, 19 and 30 would be highway robbery by the tigers. No chance gws do that.

Also. I don’t want a pick in the early teens. I want a top 5 pick and a crack at the real talent in the draft, not B graders.

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

Also. I don’t want a pick in the early teens. I want a top 5 pick and a crack at the real talent in the draft, not B graders.

We can agree to disagree on a single 2 v a seven and 15

Many other years I’d say yes but not this year

 

[Happy Mastenator]

We can agree to disagree on a single 2 v a seven and 15

Many other years I’d say yes but not this year

That was nothing like the trade I was responding to. Even so, I don’t like that deal.

 

[paran]

The drafting term of best available came out of the NFL. In that code, players expect to go where they are drafted and are given the advice of "Rent" while you play - you only "Buy" if it's a house for your Mamma or when you retire. The clubs have a lot more say in it. It does help that the salary cap is some 20 times that of what we have in the AFL. In addition, clubs initiate trades with players and so long as the player gets the $$, there is usually no drama..

I have had debates on this board that unless there is a huge gulf in talent, drafting for needs should be more important. This is especially true for interstate clubs as the market thin. However with Victoria clubs, they can afford to draft best available because of the massive go home factor for about half the draftees and there is a more fluid market for trading players within Victoria. This is not the case for outside of Victoria.

Go back to 2017 - Fremantle had picks 2 and 5 and went best available with Brayshaw and Cerra. Very few arguments that they were correct in their choice at the time with Best Available. I recall discussing with Monocle that they would have been so much better going Brayshaw or Cerra (not both) along with Naughton as they were in dire need for a tall. And this was when Naughton was viewed as an intercepting CHB. Now no need for posters to comment on the Cerra go home factor, that is not relevant in this scenario. How much better have Freo been with a duo that more suited their list build.

So if you look at the top 5 this year (excluding Ashcroft) of Busslinger, Cadman, Sheezel, Wardlaw and Tsatas, there is not a significant gap from 1 to 5.

So my thought that GWS would do well to get both Busslinger and Cadman this draft with picks 2 and 3 is a classic. Assuming we get a monster deal for pick 2, are Busslinger and Cadman best available at 2 and 3? No, but GWS have drafted too many mids and cannot fit them in. Busslinger and Cadman are more like 5 and 7 but due to teh shortage of talls, clubs will need to go earlier.

What does the draft mean for us? Well as briztoon points out, we need an injection into all lines. The draft is not offering a pointy end top 5 (Ashcroft aside) - they are good but not of the Walsh, Rowell, Anderson etc level. The highest value players in a draft are usually KPF and balanced mids. Not many of the former but a really good spread of balanced mids in the first 20 picks.

So despite the desire to just take the second best player, I see that as a choice between Tsatas and Sheezel. Neither are rocking my boat. If I could get one of Clark/Phillipou PLUS one of Hotton/McKenzie as a pair compared to only Tsatas OR Sheeezel, I would do it. Clark will probably need a pick around 6 to 8 and Hotton around 14 to 16. The trade of 7 and 15 for 2 is about right. There are other options similar to these 2 at the ranges stated which is why I am relaxed doing the split.

How often do we have WA players requesting a trade to go home? Not often. On our list is Kelly, Cripps and Yeo. Our last UFA I can recall was Xavier Ellis which was only because he got squeezed out of Hawthorn and got nervous thinking about working for Ross. Each year, there are a strong group of Vic players wanting to go home along with players who are free agents who already live in Melbourne, meaning most clubs can address their needs through these mechanisms.

The issue muddying the waters it that we are drafting 17/18yo's who aren't physically matured, especially the talls. KPP's and Rucks tend to bloom 20+ yo age, so the projection is massive. Mids and flankers are easier to project, plus a failed mid may succeed as a flanker. WRT Freo's picks, Cerra and Brayshaw weren't that complementary with each other. Still, they got great return on him. You don't not pick special players by going for need, and of things are close you should go for need.

At the end of the day, the ability to identify and project talent is the most difficult skill to have. I don't think anyone saw Naughton as a plus KPF.
Look at the consensus on Sonsie from last year and how he has shown this year! Would have loved him on our squad.

I said before, IF at the end of last season we could guarantee Hewett and Broadbent as our first 2 picks we would have taken it and ran. This age group is very variable, and hard to project. Development in first 2-4 years is massive too.

 

[Onefortheages]

Considering the Eagles' propensity to recruiting injury prone players, if we're interested in Wardlaw, can't see his hammy issues being a barrier to us drafting him.

Last time we had pick 3 a couple of teams in front overlooked a bloke with injury concerns, we took the punt and ended up with C. Judd

 

[archiemoses]

Does Sheezel go to North at 2 after aschroft?

They have a few young mids already so he fits a need there. Also he is very close to family and would prefer to stay in Melbourne from all reports.

 

[ArdentEagle]

Yeah really unprofessional on his behalf.

****ing Lawyers hey!

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Does Sheezel go to North at 2 after aschroft?

They have a few young mids already so he fits a need there. Also he is very close to family and would prefer to stay in Melbourne from BigFooty posts.