List Mgmt. Contract, Trade and Draft Discussions - 2024 Post Season

Whose future picks would you have preferred?


  • Total voters
    216

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #2


Quick links



Trade period
In:
12, F1, F2, F3, 73, Baker, Owies, Graham*
Out: 3, 63, F4, Barrass, Darling

*Free agent

Done deals

  • Jai Culley, Alex Witherden and Coby Burgiel delisted






  • Zane Trew, Jamaine Jones and Jordyn Baker delisted

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I feel like Cooper Hyne is very much an Eagles type pick at 12. Someone rated a bit later but we see something no one else sees.

In this case though, wouldn’t mind him assuming Travaglia and Tauru are off the board.
Ideally get one of GWS picks and get him with that and Travaglia🤞/Lindsay with 12.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Will Schofield is trying to do that and get his mates deal over the line


Schofield is a dickhead too then. As if the totally separate not locked in deal for Barrass to support a not locked in deal for Warner mitigates this negligence. And that is what it is. Negligence. Something like this had to be approved right up the chain.
 
I understand people referring to drafts as "compromised", however I don't think it's the correct way to address academy and F/S picks. It should only be used to describe priority picks, compensation picks and expansion clubs initial list builds.

Clubs should be viewing opposition academy prospects and F/S as unobtainable anyway and planning for the players not linked to academies. So for example saying pick 3 is really pick 4 coz of Ashcroft - well he's off the table anyway, so it's really still the same group of players available.

Sure still scout the whole cohort whether they're linked to clubs or not in case their bids cannot be matched, but otherwise plan around them and don't view the push back a draft spot as compromising when you have access to the same player available anyway.

People may disagree with me but you can go blow yourself.
 
This mightn’t be particularly popular but …

I’m not as unhappy with the trade as many (read on). However, the first of two things that did annoy me was Baker isn’t worth 14. And it seems we must have - foolishly - promised that to Richmond before we even had it, thus committing ourselves to a bad decision which then somehow had to be honored.

Secondly we unnecessarily also gave away our two late picks. Again, a bad decision made even worse by doing it for only a single (and later) pick.

That said, I’m mostly happy with the deal. We didn’t trade 3 for 12 and 14 as some incorrectly state, we also got a small forward who’s kicked 60 goals in two seasons.

And as pointed out elsewhere there’s many ways to improve a list. Most punters seemed focused on the addition of just ONE player to the top end (and in this draft is 3 so much better than 12 anyway?) Another way to do it is to improve the bottom end and I’d say at an absolute minimum the three trades will do that.

But after all that … we bloody well better get a good deal for TB!
 
Even Pyke says it was a strange deal, It wasn't strange it was just a huge failure.

The Eagles gave up pick 3 in this year's draft along with a pair of later picks and received Liam Baker, Matt Owies as well as pick 12 and 73 in return.

The move to trade out pick 3 has ruffled feathers in the west, but Pyke says the club is confident it can still land a player of significant ability at pick 12.

"If you look at the deal in isolation, the slide from three to 12 and using 14 to get Liam Baker looks a bit odd," Pyke said on SEN.

So we've gone all in on the hope Warner will come to us next year and Baker, Graham & Owies are desperate moves to try and have us not stink for another year as we tread water.

I bet the club wished the automatic membership payments had gone through already.
 
Curious from Schoey, I thought the asking price for TB was 2 x R1 and a R2... He's softened his stance dramatically

He does it all the time , before the trade period he was saying that the eagles have there hands tied with barrass and would be lucky to get a 2nd rounder
 
This mightn’t be particularly popular but …

I’m not as unhappy with the trade as many (read on). However, the first of two things that did annoy me was Baker isn’t worth 14. And it seems we must have - foolishly - promised that to Richmond before we even had it, thus committing ourselves to a bad decision which then somehow had to be honored.

Secondly we unnecessarily also gave away our two late picks. Again, a bad decision made even worse by doing it for only a single (and later) pick.

That said, I’m mostly happy with the deal. We didn’t trade 3 for 12 and 14 as some incorrectly state, we also got a small forward who’s kicked 60 goals in two seasons.

And as pointed out elsewhere there’s many ways to improve a list. Most punters seemed focused on the addition of just ONE player to the top end (and in this draft is 3 so much better than 12 anyway?) Another way to do it is to improve the bottom end and I’d say at an absolute minimum the three trades will do that.

But after all that … we bloody well better get a good deal for TB!
Fair enough, and I thought the big watch would be the Barrass trade - it's a side show today.
 
The only way to fix this, is to trade Allen to St Kilda for 7 and 8
Signed up two months ago, posted six times, each specifically about how Allen is terrible or should be traded.

Change the record mate.
 
I understand people referring to drafts as "compromised", however I don't think it's the correct way to address academy and F/S picks. It should only be used to describe priority picks, compensation picks and expansion clubs initial list builds.

Clubs should be viewing opposition academy prospects and F/S as unobtainable anyway and planning for the players not linked to academies. So for example saying pick 3 is really pick 4 coz of Ashcroft - well he's off the table anyway, so it's really still the same group of players available.

Sure still scout the whole cohort whether they're linked to clubs or not in case their bids cannot be matched, but otherwise plan around them and don't view the push back a draft spot as compromising when you have access to the same player available anyway.

People may disagree with me but you can go blow yourself.
This is true, in that Pick 15 getting pushed backed to 16 when an Ashcroft bid comes in doesn’t really matter, as Ashcroft was never available in the first place.

However, when I think about a compromised draft, it’s because in a given year there’s only ever likely to be x number of elite kids, x number of good kids, and so on. When half of them are club tied, it does make it quite hard to pick the eyes out of.

If there’s 10 elite kids in a draft in which we have two top 10 picks, we should be laughing, but if half of them are tied to clubs already it makes it that much harder to nail.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Issue we still have in this draft is that we only have 2 decent picks.
And no later picks to pick up a late gem.
After adding the 3 27 year olds, I think we have 3 spots left on the main list pending more delistings.
4 on the main list still uncontracted plus Culley on the rookie list.
I can't see how Rotham and Edwards survives the cull. Burgiel would need a lot of luck as well.
Meaning by the draft we may have 5 spots, but only 2 decent picks plus Champion.
I don't think we've drafted as few 3 players since the TK trade aftermath, but if we wanna draft a couple more, we have no draft capital this year.
Otherwise we'll have a couple of spots for SSP or rookie draft selections.
Ideally during a rebuild you wanna have as many usable picks as possible, but we've gone the opposite direction.
 
This mightn’t be particularly popular but …

I’m not as unhappy with the trade as many (read on). However, the first of two things that did annoy me was Baker isn’t worth 14. And it seems we must have - foolishly - promised that to Richmond before we even had it, thus committing ourselves to a bad decision which then somehow had to be honored.

Secondly we unnecessarily also gave away our two late picks. Again, a bad decision made even worse by doing it for only a single (and later) pick.

That said, I’m mostly happy with the deal. We didn’t trade 3 for 12 and 14 as some incorrectly state, we also got a small forward who’s kicked 60 goals in two seasons.

And as pointed out elsewhere there’s many ways to improve a list. Most punters seemed focused on the addition of just ONE player to the top end (and in this draft is 3 so much better than 12 anyway?) Another way to do it is to improve the bottom end and I’d say at an absolute minimum the three trades will do that.

But after all that … we bloody well better get a good deal for TB!

The way I see it we traded 62 & 67 for Owies and 73. Then we dressed it up as if he was part of the upper end deal of 3 for 12 & 14 where we overpaid.

And part 3 was overpaying for Baker.

The bottom end part should not have existed as Owies was going to be delisted so we could have got him for nothing.
 
stallon where do you sit with this?
Just curious as you believe that having more players like baker and Graham off half back are what's required rather than top end miss?

Honestly not having a go just curious if you agree with this trade?
What?
I want outside ball users and speed, Baker and Graham are the opposite of that
 
This is true, in that Pick 15 getting pushed backed to 16 when an Ashcroft bid comes in doesn’t really matter, as Ashcroft was never available in the first place.

However, when I think about a compromised draft, it’s because in a given year there’s only ever likely to be x number of elite kids, x number of good kids, and so on. When half of them are club tied, it does make it quite hard to pick the eyes out of.

If there’s 10 elite kids in a draft in which we have two top 10 picks, we should be laughing, but if half of them are tied to clubs already it makes it that much harder to nail.

Esp when there are 2 or 3 Vic Metro players compromising the draft by refusing to move interstate.
 
Independent review and start with sacking the board. Pyke on heavy watch with Clarke.

Absolute joke we have become. Disgraceful. The way Pyke carried himself in that interview was shocking
I'm not watching that.

What's the point.

Oh well sunday is my day. Delete my account and stop watching footy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top