List Mgmt. COLLINGWOOD Trade and F/A Discussion 2023

[Johno9911]

In regards to the Lycett "rumor", if the pies were targeting a cheap and experienced ruck surely Goldstein would be a far better target than Lycett?

Yes I know he's 4 years older than Lycett, but Goldy is far more durable and I know for a fact (from people within North) that he is as dedicated and focused trainer/preparer as there is in the league. Whether we're looking for someone to be ruck depth, coverage or even just a mentor/tutor to the likes of Begg or Steene, surely Goldy would be a significantly better option to Lycett in terms of quality and possibly even cost?

 

[Bianconeri]

2 days left in trade period we were losing Henry for massive unders.
Then Mitchell bobs up....which we really had no choice but to accept as it was better than the previous offer.

There was noise around Mitchell before the trade period it wasn’t just something that happened at the end of the trade period.

Imo we got fair value for Henry, he was out of contract, outside our best 22 last season and likely further outside of it this season.

 

[Bianconeri]

The acquisition of Markov was opportunistic but again, demonstrated an intelligent, flexible and pragmatic approach. To say that the club didn't identify and pursue Markov is inaccurate; he was invited to train with us in the off-season and did so, however Steene was preferred over him.

The only mistake with recruiting Markov was not leaving a list spot for him in the first place and having to wait for LTI.

 

[Scodog10]

Much harder this year, at this stage there's no obvious holes to fill.

I wouldn't be that surprised if we were talking to Lycetts manager in case ruck gets exposed as a weakness in the finals.

I wouldn’t either. My point is rather that as a move in isolation it’s horrible because Lycett is the wrong option for that play and it would leave us bloated with ruckman on the list. We’d have 5.5 rucks and I’d go so far as to say the .5 is the best of them in Frampton. I would honestly prefer Nic Nat to Lycett because they’re both well past it and worn down by injury, but if Nic Nat got it right he could still be a quality ruckman unlike Lycett. On a more serious note if you’re taking that all in path Goldstein is a much better option.

 

[Quicky]

It was pretty bloody uninspiring wasn’t it compared to what we did last offseason. The only observations I’d make are McLean’s development has been significant this year and I’m not as confident there’s nothing in the Lycett one. * knows why we’d have an interest in an injury prone 30+ bog average ruck with the options we already have on the list, but the way it was presented suggested to me there’s smoke there.

Maybe Camerons off or Cox has indicated he's hanging up the boots.

 

[Quicky]

Just on last season.

My view is that we absolutely lucked out rather than 100% astute planning and management.

Heading into trade period....targets were Hill (win), Frampton (win) and McStay (2 games in the role he was targeted for, so that's a fail to date).

2 days left in trade period we were losing Henry for massive unders.
Then Mitchell bobs up....which we really had no choice but to accept as it was better than the previous offer.

Then when we did have a choice, we chose Steene over Markov.
If Dean does his foot 24 hours later than he did, we miss Markov (who i reckon would be out of the Blues after one year based on their system).

So 2/4 playing on the weekend were more fate and right place right time rather than identified and pursued talent.

Hence why the expectation of us doing what we did last year needs to be significantly tempered IMO.

I think there was a plenty of planning involved. We got our main targets and when the situation changed we were responsive and got the best out of those opportunities. If anything turning Henry into Mitchell, a LTI into Markov and getting Carltons 2nd rounder (however we pulled that off) was the most impressive part of the trade week. Turning shit situations into rolled gold was fantastic.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

I'm not sure that McStay can, on an objective basis, be written off as a 'fail to date'. He's on a 5 year contract and hasn't played due to injury. There's still plenty of time for him to return this season and make a mark on the home and away and, hopefully, finals. Assessing his acquisition based on two thirds of a season is pretty unfair both to McStay and to the recruiting team.

The terminology of "fail to date" implies that it is an assessment of what has occurred TO DATE. Therefore your points about his future potential value are moot.
also,
The terminology "objective basis" for assessing his value TO DATE, by definition, excludes a subjective view of what his future value may be.

An objective assessment of his value as a recruit TO DATE is as follows: He played 5 games at an average of 8.6 disposals a game and o.6 goals per game. Then he got injured and has not played for the past 11 soon to be 12 rounds. My objective assessment of his recruitment TO DATE is that it has been a failure. I think the objective facts clearly support this assessment.... TO DATE

That does not mean or imply that his recruitment WILL BE a failure.

 

[sr36]

Just on last season.

My view is that we absolutely lucked out rather than 100% astute planning and management.

Heading into trade period....targets were Hill (win), Frampton (win) and McStay (2 games in the role he was targeted for, so that's a fail to date).

2 days left in trade period we were losing Henry for massive unders.
Then Mitchell bobs up....which we really had no choice but to accept as it was better than the previous offer.

Then when we did have a choice, we chose Steene over Markov.
If Dean does his foot 24 hours later than he did, we miss Markov (who i reckon would be out of the Blues after one year based on their system).

So 2/4 playing on the weekend were more fate and right place right time rather than identified and pursued talent.

Hence why the expectation of us doing what we did last year needs to be significantly tempered IMO.

The Mitchell to Collingwood rumours started before the end of the season. It wasn't last minute and always looked likey as long as we could off load Grundy first.

Markov is the only one that was happenstance.

 

[KinderSmock]

Just on last season.

My view is that we absolutely lucked out rather than 100% astute planning and management.

Heading into trade period....targets were Hill (win), Frampton (win) and McStay (2 games in the role he was targeted for, so that's a fail to date).

2 days left in trade period we were losing Henry for massive unders.
Then Mitchell bobs up....which we really had no choice but to accept as it was better than the previous offer.

Then when we did have a choice, we chose Steene over Markov.
If Dean does his foot 24 hours later than he did, we miss Markov (who i reckon would be out of the Blues after one year based on their system).

So 2/4 playing on the weekend were more fate and right place right time rather than identified and pursued talent.

Hence why the expectation of us doing what we did last year needs to be significantly tempered IMO.

I don’t think it was such a shock to get Mitchell. Hawthorn had their intentions set out, so did Geelong, so did we. Mitchell, with the knowledge of a rebuild, wanted out. He has a Brownlow. Doesn’t have a premiership.

 

[TradeDraft]

Watching the VFL shows why could be Interested for a Mature Ruckman.

Begg is not really a Ruckman and Steene still very skinny and could be 2-3 Seasons away from being Permanently in the AFL side

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

The Mitchell to Collingwood rumours started before the end of the season. It wasn't last minute and always looked likey as long as we could off load Grundy first.

Markov is the only one that was happenstance.

No Mitchell for Henry was absolutely not planned.
Pure luck that hawks and cats were happy to do a deal for a player.

We reacted very well. Don’t get me wrong.
But it was months and months of planning.

All I was trying to say was that shouldn’t expect the same this year.

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

I don’t think it was such a shock to get Mitchell. Hawthorn had their intentions set out, so did Geelong, so did we. Mitchell, with the knowledge of a rebuild, wanted out. He has a Brownlow. Doesn’t have a premiership.

Was a shock to get him for the price we did and bundled in with Henry…

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

The terminology of "fail to date" implies that it is an assessment of what has occurred TO DATE. Therefore your points about his future potential value are moot.
also,
The terminology "objective basis" for assessing his value TO DATE, by definition, excludes a subjective view of what his future value may be.

An objective assessment of his value as a recruit TO DATE is as follows: He played 5 games at an average of 8.6 disposals a game and o.6 goals per game. Then he got injured and has not played for the past 11 soon to be 12 rounds. My objective assessment of his recruitment TO DATE is that it has been a failure. I think the objective facts clearly support this assessment.... TO DATE

That does not mean or imply that his recruitment WILL BE a failure.

Was about to say the same thing….you said it much better

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

I think there was a plenty of planning involved. We got our main targets and when the situation changed we were responsive and got the best out of those opportunities. If anything turning Henry into Mitchell, a LTI into Markov and getting Carltons 2nd rounder (however we pulled that off) was the most impressive part of the trade week. Turning s**t situations into rolled gold was fantastic.

That’s exactly my point.
We reacted well and stayed flexible. Something our prior FD was seemingly incapable of doing.

Just a lot of right place right time right assets….just warning everyone not to expect that as the standard for offseason movements.

 

[manicpie]

Much harder this year, at this stage there's no obvious holes to fill.

I wouldn't be that surprised if we were talking to Lycetts manager in case ruck gets exposed as a weakness in the finals.

I was too afraid to say that Lycett would be a good pick up but now that you broke the ice, I agree

 

[sr36]

No Mitchell for Henry was absolutely not planned.
Pure luck that hawks and cats were happy to do a deal for a player.

We reacted very well. Don’t get me wrong.
But it was months and months of planning.

All I was trying to say was that shouldn’t expect the same this year.

The final deal involving Henry might have been last minute, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't coming to us anyway. Mitchell was telling everyone that he wanted to play for Collingwood. That's not happening if a deal is unlikely.

 

[Scodog10]

Maybe Camerons off or Cox has indicated he's hanging up the boots.

That would fit the might as well delist Begg or even Frampton narrative I emotively went with earlier. Lycett is still the wrong guy, but we’d need those sorts of circumstances for me to get behind a move on a ruckman and I don’t see it happening. Do you?

Thinking on it more what doesn’t add up about it is that we were over invested in rucks $ wise in 2022 and may now be looking at an over investment list spot wise in 2024…

 

[sr36]

I was too afraid to say that Lycett would be a good pick up but now that you broke the ice, I agree

I don't know where he's currently at. More that our rucks are borderline, so it's an area that we might look to bolster if they get exposed in the back half of the year.

 

[Jen2310]

According to an article we wanted holmes for henry. Geelong clearly never were gonna go for that


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[VinnieB]

The only mistake with recruiting Markov was not leaving a list spot for him in the first place and having to wait for LTI.

To be fair, no-one was going to recruit Markov. The fact we invited him to train with the club and, and regardless of the circumstance, recruited him, is a pick tick for the recruitment team.

 

[Quicky]

That’s exactly my point.
We reacted well and stayed flexible. Something our prior FD was seemingly incapable of doing.

Just a lot of right place right time right assets….just warning everyone not to expect that as the standard for offseason movements.

Ever hear that Graham Kennedy quote the best ad lib is practiced ad lib. That's what happened. You can't respond the way we did without a lot of planning to enable it.

 

[Bussie]

Anyone think Hoskin-Elliott might not go around next year?

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Anyone think Hoskin-Elliott might not go around next year?

Na. He still get a few games next year.

 

[Bianconeri]

Anyone think Hoskin-Elliott might not go around next year?

He hasn’t even turned 30 yet. I’d be highly surprised.

 

[HFF]

He hasn’t even turned 30 yet. I’d be highly surprised.

I’m certain he has a contract for next year too anyway