Rumour GFC 2019 Player Trading, Drafting FA, Rumours and Wish lists.

[thecatattack]

Saints Dogs Magpies Essendon, Port A

These teams have 4 flags between them since 2000.

Saints lmfaooooooooooooooo, why the **** did you mention them when talking about flags?

Dogs got gifted one and then fell off

Pies have been good but they were lucky that the draw didn't go into extra time as they were cooked

Essendon won in 2000 and haven't won a final since 2004, surprisingly the same year Port won their last flag.

Am I missing something? Was this post sarcastic?

 

[catman2006]

Hmm. Don’t understand why it can’t be concurrent.

In theory it can be done concurrently but 1 top draft pick a year is not enough, you need a few years where you can land 3 or 4 top 40 picks, and I advocate the club do trade for a few extra picks this or next year, we have a good start hopefully 14 & 22 with our own pick 16, 33 really would like another top 30 pick for this year

 

[year of the cat]

Sorry, added more above. The bolded is the pivotal assumption. If you don’t use high picks in trades I think concurrent approach is achievable and actually preferable.

By that you are effectively acknowledging that late picks are of no value being used in the draft. Better off being used for trade purposes. I'm not sure I subscribe to that. If you look at the Tigers they have been very successful of late with their late/rookie picks.

 

[catman2006]

These teams have 4 flags between them since 2000.

Saints lmfaooooooooooooooo, why the fu** did you mention them when talking about flags?

Dogs got gifted one and then fell off

Pies have been good but they were lucky that the draw didn't go into extra time as they were cooked

Essendon won in 2000 and haven't won a final since 2004, surprisingly the same year Port won their last flag.

Am I missing something? Was this post sarcastic?

fair enough about the saints they still got too 2 Gf but they all hit draft hard before success

 

[Cataholic]

Sorry, added more above. The bolded is the pivotal assumption. If you don’t use high picks in trades I think concurrent approach is achievable and actually preferable.

I can see some merit in it, with the crucial proviso being that high picks AREN'T used, but I think there's also a risk that the list age will creep and suddenly we have a hole in our list profile as you identified elsewhere........ Unless they monitor this 'creep' specifically

 

[Hamingja]

We've done well with our own mid-late picks.

We are going to need top 10 picks to build the base for our next midfield though post Dangerfield and Selwood.

That will become a lot clearer to most next year.

You can't get multiple free agent mids as it is too expensive salary cap wise. You need to pick them, develop them, then have them on $500k-$600k Ablett style 07/09 when you hit your window rather than having to pay them $1 million to sign on.

 

[catempire]

In theory it can be done concurrently but 1 top draft pick a year is not enough, you need a few years where you can land 3 or 4 top 40 picks, and I advocate the club do trade for a few extra picks this or next year, we have a good start hopefully 14 & 22 with our own pick 16, 33 really would like another top 30 pick for this year

Who you going to trade out?

 

[catempire]

By that you are effectively acknowledging that late picks are of no value being used in the draft. Better off being used for trade purposes. I'm not sure I subscribe to that. If you look at the Tigers they have been very successful of late with their late/rookie picks.

Wait what? No I’m not saying that at all.

 

[year of the cat]

Wait what? No I’m not saying that at all.

What are you saying then? That we hold all our high picks (what is "high"?) and trade only our lower picks - not all of them of course but some, but if you identify some good late talent then use late picks? Only issue is that trade week happens before, not after the draft. So you would have to be determining what later picks you would be prepared to take to the draft and those you'd be prepared to trade.

Every draft has differing talent pools and depth. You'd want to think you have a pretty god handle on what you are prepared to possibly give up before you go on and trade those picks out. I just think a less risk averse method would be to hit 2-3 drafts and then look at filling what you may not think you have been able to at the draft with traded players. Just seems a more consistent method to me.

 

[catman2006]

Who you going to trade out?

Thats the million dollar question as we dont hold much in value, but Im ok if we traded Blitz, Parfitt, even if Constable wanted out

 

[catempire]

What are you saying then?

I’m saying you can draft a large group of players over 3-4 drafts while bringing in ready made players at the same time. There’s not necessarily a trade off. It’s only when you are trading out first round picks (or let’s say, top 30) that you are compromising the ability to bring in high quality draft talent.

 

[catempire]

Thats the million dollar question as we dont hold much in value, but Im ok if we traded Blitz, Parfitt, even if Constable wanted out

It’s the age old thing: you’re happy to get rid of them because you think they’re no good but you hope another club will be tricked into paying overs?

 

[Cataholic]

It’s the age old thing: you’re happy to get rid of them because you think they’re no good but you hope another club will be tricked into paying overs?

Human nature.

Top dollar always wanted, whether selling a car, a house, or even a footy player

 

[Two Planks]

So if we are eying off Jeremy Cameron as the Hawkins replacement, why don't we just offer the Giants the trade this year and forget free agency.

 

[year of the cat]

I’m saying you can draft a large group of players over 3-4 drafts while bringing in ready made players at the same time. There’s not necessarily a trade off. It’s only when you are trading out first round picks (or let’s say, top 30) that you are compromising the ability to bring in high quality draft talent.

Fair enough. I think it also depends on what type/age players you are looking to bring in as well. Are they realistically going to be part of your next flag side? It’s no use bringing in a mature player if they are going to be done by the time you think we are going to be challenging again. Hard one to predict as fortunes can change quickly.

 

[Mahlepi]

So if we are eying off Jeremy Cameron as the Hawkins replacement, why don't we just offer the Giants the trade this year and forget free agency.

because we need to use 2 first picks as we need to freshen the bottom end of the list

 

[catman2006]

It’s the age old thing: you’re happy to get rid of them because you think they’re no good but you hope another club will be tricked into paying overs?

No they still have ability just sometimes you need to make sacrifices for the greater good of the team, quite sure other supporters would throw up other names.

We still wouldnt have the picks for Cameron they would be wanting top 5 pick

 

[year of the cat]

So if we are eying off Jeremy Cameron as the Hawkins replacement, why don't we just offer the Giants the trade this year and forget free agency.

Because you’d have to give up the farm to get him this year. We won’t win the flag next year so why not wait until we don’t have to give up anything? (In terms of picks that is)

 

[Cataholic]

Fair enough. I think it also depends on what type/age players you are looking to bring in as well. Are they realistically going to be part of your next flag side? It’s no use bringing in a mature player if they are going to be done by the time you think we are going to be challenging again. Hard one to predict as fortunes can change quickly.

Jack Steven is a classic example.

As I posted before, I'd maybe consider getting him if I thought we were a real chance in the next 2 years. But I don't.

So, imo, bringing him in only stifles 2 years of development that could be injected into a youngster.

Then we have a guy ready to potentially go for the next 5 years whilst Jack drifts off into retirement.

 

[Two Planks]

Because you’d have to give up the farm to get him this year. We won’t win the flag next year so why not wait until we don’t have to give up anything? (In terms of picks that is)

We will not outbid the Giants next year, so either way it's a trade scenario.

 

[thegerman]

stupid they got rid of that rule If a ruckman takes it out of the air and tackled free kick now use see rucks taking it out of the air more with no consequences.

I think it's ok, as it works for us with Hawk in the forward line. But it should be easy to call to make. Especially for the umpire off the contest.

But they don't make the call


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Mahlepi]

We will not outbid the Giants next year, so either way it's a trade scenario.

no chance, we have a truckload of room, they dont

 

[Two Planks]

no chance, we have a truckload of room, they dont

So are we going to pay him more than Dangerfield

 

[catempire]

Fair enough. I think it also depends on what type/age players you are looking to bring in as well. Are they realistically going to be part of your next flag side? It’s no use bringing in a mature player if they are going to be done by the time you think we are going to be challenging again. Hard one to predict as fortunes can change quickly.

I look at the past three player movement periods for us and see a good balance. 16 ND selections, 3 trades, 1 FA and 6 rookies. So an average of roughly 5 ND, 1 trade, 1 in 3 FA and 2 rookies.

Kelly's departure will give us a strong draft hand this year but other than that I think we will see more of the same balanced approach.

 

[Mahlepi]

So are we going to pay him more than Dangerfield

all you need to do is offer a 2 year deal at 1.4 , and then we joins average it over 5 years ala 1 mil per year
not hard, you front load,

and if anyone thinks we manage our payments well
How have richmond kept their list together, brought in prestia, lynch, caddy etc whilst having rance, cotchin, dusty, reiwoldt etc on their list
we are paying more than you are led to beleive

we lack richmond's depth yet appear to be tight on cap