Traded Jaeger O'Meara [traded to Hawthorn for pick 10 and GWS's 2017 2nd rd pick] - Part 2

[Procrastinator35]

Now three of four days on, but finally now I can give one of the people in the press a pass for this trade period.
Emma Qualye mark upgraded to B+
Landsberger gooes from F to F- after his last 36 hours.
Tried to muddy the waters and make out AFL were outside their own rules.
Pathetic reporting by him.

Landsberger has unequivocally proven one thing, over these past 4 weeks....He's nothing but a Mark Robinson stooge & a Tullamarine Patsy.

A journalist he aint....Lick-spittle, YES.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...l/news-story/193b777072a675dccc28411bd0dfecd1

Yet more whingeing, bitching & moaning here....Pathetic.

 

[cdcanman]

What I dont understand is how Geelong dont need to spend 2 x 1st round next year, to meet the requirement of 2 in 4 years.

"But if the Cats are (somehow) able to trade two first-round picks back in next year, and use them, they will have made the necessarily two first-round selections. They also have their 2018 first-rounder to come.
If they're not able to take those two picks in the next two years, they'll be prevented from trading any further first rounders. But given it is not yet impossible for them to do that, they could not have been prevented from trading a third." Emma Quayle

Stupidly written rule. The NBA's Stepien rule is much simpler. Can't trade first rd picks from consecutive years, ie: you must select in the first rd every second season (whether your own pick or somebody else's). To counteract the potential limitations that this would create to getting trade deals done however, they are allowed to trade picks as far into the future as they like (as long as by doing so, they remain compliant with rules such as the Stepien rule).

Putting conditions on trading of future picks might be the next thing we see in the AFL. I wonder if it would even be allowed?
For example: Team A trades their 2017 1st rd pick to Team B, but they put a condition on the trade that if they happen to finish in the bottom 4, then they hang onto the pick and will then surrender their 2018 1st rd pick instead. Hope I explained that well enough

 

[Scotland]

I don't get the Geelong thing.

Assuming they don't acquire a first round pick for 2017 or an additional one for 2018, what next? They are 'prevented from trading any future first round picks'. Until when? Is 2015-2018 a discrete 4 year block? Can they use their first round picks in 2018/2019 then claim that 2016-2019 is a 4 year block with two picks used and just ignore 2015?

I bet the AFL come out and say that their original wording of the 'you can't trade your 2nd pick if you trade your 1st' was correct and they made a mistake/exception in approving the O'Meara trade. That'll just piss everyone off.

 

[HolyRioli]

I don't get the Geelong thing.

Assuming they don't acquire a first round pick for 2017 or an additional one for 2018, what next? They are 'prevented from trading any future first round picks'. Until when? Is 2015-2018 a discrete 4 year block? Can they use their first round picks in 2018/2019 then claim that 2016-2019 is a 4 year block with two picks used and just ignore 2015?

I bet the AFL come out and say that their original wording of the 'you can't trade your 2nd pick if you trade your 1st' was correct and they made a mistake/exception in approving the O'Meara trade. That'll just piss everyone off.

I'd imagine they're told no trading first round picks for X years.

 

[Procrastinator35]

I don't get the Geelong thing.

Assuming they don't acquire a first round pick for 2017 or an additional one for 2018, what next? They are 'prevented from trading any future first round picks'. Until when? Is 2015-2018 a discrete 4 year block? Can they use their first round picks in 2018/2019 then claim that 2016-2019 is a 4 year block with two picks used and just ignore 2015?

I bet the AFL come out and say that their original wording of the 'you can't trade your 2nd pick if you trade your 1st' was correct and they made a mistake/exception in approving the O'Meara trade. That'll just piss everyone off.

There's a time-lag issue involved here, as well as a semantic one....There's definite grounds for interpretation....The fact that only 4 club's list-manager's were fully cognizant of the rules - as per Emma Quayle's article - is a real cause for concern.

They've traded-out 2 future firsts (16/17), but their 2015 wasn't a 'future-pick'....So I'm guessing that 2015 no longer 'counts' within the '4 year block'.

 

[Scotland]

I'd imagine they're told no trading first round picks for X years.

Key word being imagine. Once again the AFL aren't actually clear on it.

The last 5, 10 pages have been full of speculation that Hawthorn somehow broke the rules. That speculation only exists because people don't know what the rules actually are. When you have people who work for the AFL saying that a club did not complete or could not have completed a trade which was approved by the AFL you have to shake your head.

 

[Verdun]

"But if the Cats are (somehow) able to trade two first-round picks back in next year, and use them, they will have made the necessarily two first-round selections. They also have their 2018 first-rounder to come.
If they're not able to take those two picks in the next two years, they'll be prevented from trading any further first rounders. But given it is not yet impossible for them to do that, they could not have been prevented from trading a third." Emma Quayle

Stupidly written rule. The NBA's Stepien rule is much simpler. Can't trade first rd picks from consecutive years, ie: you must select in the first rd every second season (whether your own pick or somebody else's). To counteract the potential limitations that this would create to getting trade deals done however, they are allowed to trade picks as far into the future as they like (as long as by doing so, they remain compliant with rules such as the Stepien rule).

Putting conditions on trading of future picks might be the next thing we see in the AFL. I wonder if it would even be allowed?
For example: Team A trades their 2017 1st rd pick to Team B, but they put a condition on the trade that if they happen to finish in the bottom 4, then they hang onto the pick and will then surrender their 2018 1st rd pick instead. Hope I explained that well enough

would be named the Hawthorn rule

 

[Scotland]

There's a time-lag issue involved here, as well as a semantic one....There's definite grounds for interpretation....The fact that only 4 club's list-manager's were fully cognizant of the rules - as per Emma Quayle's article - is a real cause for concern.

They've traded-out 2 future firsts (16/17), but their 2015 wasn't a 'future-pick'....So I'm guessing that 2015 no longer 'counts' within the '4 year block'.

More grey area.

Based on this:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-12/the-futurepick-puzzle

I understand that all first round picks count.

Geelong and Collingwood did not have a first-round draft pick in 2016 and will not have one in their hands when they enter the 2016 trade period either, having used a future first-round draft pick last year to secure Lachie Henderson from Carlton and Adam Treloar from Greater Western Sydney.

The two clubs will have to make two first-round draft picks before the end of 2018, potentially limiting their immediate options at the trade table this season unless they can trade their way back into the first round.

Under the rules the four-year period is rolling, meaning clubs will find it difficult to go more than two consecutive years without first-round draft picks.

 

[LukeHodge15]

There's a time-lag issue involved here, as well as a semantic one....There's definite grounds for interpretation....The fact that only 4 club's list-manager's were fully cognizant of the rules - as per Emma Quayle's article - is a real cause for concern.

They've traded-out 2 future firsts (16/17), but their 2015 wasn't a 'future-pick'....So I'm guessing that 2015 no longer 'counts' within the '4 year block'.

I reckon this is the answer

 

[kirbatron]

To acquire Mitchell & O'meara, before trade week I would have expected to lose (I think most would agree)

16 & 17 Firsts, Hill Compo & A player

Actual
16 & 17 Firsts, Hill Compo, Swap of seconds + late picks

In essence, we're banking on the hartungs, sicily's etc to outperform whatever we could have drafted with the later picks...

This seems fairly reasonable doesn't it?

 

[Verdun]

To acquire Mitchell & O'meara, before trade week I would have expected to lose (I think most would agree)

16 & 17 Firsts, Hill Compo & A player

Actual
16 & 17 Firsts, Hill Compo, Swap of seconds + late picks

In essence, we're banking on the hartungs, sicily's etc to outperform whatever we could have drafted with the later picks...

This seems fairly reasonable doesn't it?

If you can keep doing it ie trading away future picks yep good luck!

Obvious risk involved but if anyone gets away with it - it's the Hawks!

 

[Billyc]

As she often does, Emma Quayle hits the nail on the head. Herald Sun has never been a good newspaper but it has lowered itself to Woman's Day levels since Mike Sheahan retired and they let the unprofessional likes of Robbo and Landsberger simply troll their own agendas. Even Barrett thought the place was beneath him.

 

[kirbatron]

If you can keep doing it ie trading away future picks yep good luck!

Obvious risk involved but if anyone gets away with it - it's the Hawks!

Well yes if you keep using multiple picks on players you will run out of picks very soon.

That is why we will be looking to get back in the draft in the next 12/24 months - the club will have already identified players that can be traded out, with a view of seeing their development with more game time in 2017 as a transitional year for the club. Why is everyone only focusing on the short term?

Well run clubs have a proficient long term list strategy.

Assuming JOM wanted to get to the saints. What would you have been happy with the club paying?

 

[Procrastinator35]

If you can keep doing it ie trading away future picks yep good luck!

Obvious risk involved but if anyone gets away with it - it's the Hawks!

You're in possession of all the necessary pre-requisites required to work at the HUN...Hawk Salt n Jelly.

 

[faible]

To acquire Mitchell & O'meara, before trade week I would have expected to lose (I think most would agree)

16 & 17 Firsts, Hill Compo & A player

Actual
16 & 17 Firsts, Hill Compo, Swap of seconds + late picks

In essence, we're banking on the hartungs, sicily's etc to outperform whatever we could have drafted with the later picks...

This seems fairly reasonable doesn't it?

The Mitchell trade in isolation was a good one, he's the kind of player you'd be very happy if a top 5/10 draft pick turned in to.

Giving up so much for O'Meara is a huge risk, based off an estimate of what he could have become. I hope he turns out to be the player he appeared he'd become, but it's certainly a big gamble when no one really can be sure he'll play out an AFL season at any level, let alone top 5 in the competition.

 

[kirbatron]

The Mitchell trade in isolation was a good one, he's the kind of player you'd be very happy if a top 5/10 draft pick turned in to.

Giving up so much for O'Meara is a huge risk, based off an estimate of what he could have become. I hope he turns out to be the player he appeared he'd become, but it's certainly a big gamble when no one really can be sure he'll play out an AFL season at any level, let alone top 5 in the competition.

Get all that, however if our medical team expressed the exact opinion stated above (they did a full medical on him) - do you really think we would have pursued it so hard?

 

[faible]

Get all that, however if our medical team expressed the exact opinion stated above (they did a full medical on him) - do you really think we would have pursued it so hard?

Personally I think the club is pursuing a high-risk strategy because the core of the group that has been so successful are either gone, unavailable, or on the tail-end of their careers. If JOM is able to get on the park consistently and is as good as he seemed like he might be, it could work, but that's a huge unknown until probably mid-late in the 2017 season. I think losing Lewis & Mitchell wasn't exactly things going to plan, and there's a lot of unknowns as to how players like Hodge and Gibson hold up next year.

Essendon as a counter-point; had a good bargaining position in the PSD but doesn't have the core group of older players - plus the unknown of how the returning players will actually perform - to justify losing the necessary draft picks that would have satisfied the Suns in a trade - had JOM decided Essendon was where he wanted to be of course.

Round 1 will certainly be an interesting start to the season for us both!

 

[Prudster]

Personally I think the club is pursuing a high-risk strategy because the core of the group that has been so successful are either gone, unavailable, or on the tail-end of their careers. If JOM is able to get on the park consistently and is as good as he seemed like he might be, it could work, but that's a huge unknown until probably mid-late in the 2017 season. I think losing Lewis & Mitchell wasn't exactly things going to plan, and there's a lot of unknowns as to how players like Hodge and Gibson hold up next year.

Essendon as a counter-point; had a good bargaining position in the PSD but doesn't have the core group of older players - plus the unknown of how the returning players will actually perform - to justify losing the necessary draft picks that would have satisfied the Suns in a trade - had JOM decided Essendon was where he wanted to be of course.

Round 1 will certainly be an interesting start to the season for us both!

Out of interest, do you think that JOM is less likely to come off (ie. riskier) than the picks that we gave up for him?

 

[Vindicater]

Out of interest, do you think that JOM is less likely to come off (ie. riskier) than the picks that we gave up for him?

I think there is a higher chance that the sum total of JOM is less than the sum total of those picks. (Due to injury)

On the other hand if there is no injury then JOM will be more valuable than the picks you gave up.

It is the definition of a high risk/high reward move.

 

[Procrastinator35]

It is the definition of a high risk/high reward move.

Certainly....And goes some way to explaining the EFC coveting his services so heatedly.

Not to mention the ever-continuing week-long melt, since we signed him.

Has there ever been a bigger sook in AFL History, I wonder?

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Sour puss. Off course it's a bad injury, maybe almost as bad as accumulated scar tissue for long periods of losing.

OK - so its seems Hawk fans are brown panting over Jaeger's knee .............. I know would be!

If he gets back on the park then at the very least you will have a good ordinary player at your disposal

 

[Verdun]

You're in possession of all the necessary pre-requisites required to work at the HUN...Hawk Salt n Jelly.

Settle down mate - I was actually commending the Hawks for backing themselves and being able to bring in talent.

If you are that defensive now will be interesting to see how fired up you get after a few losses

Well yes if you keep using multiple picks on players you will run out of picks very soon.

That is why we will be looking to get back in the draft in the next 12/24 months - the club will have already identified players that can be traded out, with a view of seeing their development with more game time in 2017 as a transitional year for the club. Why is everyone only focusing on the short term?

Well run clubs have a proficient long term list strategy.

Assuming JOM wanted to get to the saints. What would you have been happy with the club paying?

Again I was not laying the boots in to the Hawks - no need to be so defensive; if you can not acknowledge the trading out of picks has some risks fair enough. At least you acknowledge '17 as transitional.

I agree you can only look on picks, drafts for 12 / 24 months, I respect the Hawks for having a the balls to get the players they want as all clubs do.

Seriously Hawks supporters CHILL - it is only discussion! If I say yep I respect the Hawks most clubs supporters would appreciate it when I also highlight the risk the amount of nastiness is not justified.

As you say well run clubs have a proficient long tem list strategy - the Hawks are doing it differently to the Saints I have never said one is right or wrong; I will say that the Saints are also displaying more than a proficient long term list strategy (McEvoy for Acres / Savage, letting Stanley go for picks and drafting in Bruce / Membrey / Brown/ Stevens to address need and have picks to go with) It could be said the Hawks have been risky and the Saints smart this is a statement not a criticism.

Hawks supporters learn to take a compliment (respect for getting in class in Mitchell and O'Meara) but also learn to have a conversation without being damn righteous others are able to point out risk (letting go of next years first round pick and O'Meara not having played for 2 years)

I really enjoy watching clubs and their picks / drafts over a period of time

 

[faible]

Out of interest, do you think that JOM is less likely to come off (ie. riskier) than the picks that we gave up for him?

I think you'd be safer gambling on 1 x First Round and 2 x Second Round picks producing more games than JOM, yes. Hawthorn probably has the list (at the moment) to make that gamble, but its most definitely a risk.

Also keep in mind Richmond as a team where the top 5-6 are quality players, but a lack of talent around them hamstrings their chances of success.

Hurling People Now has a pretty good write-up as to the value of various draft picks in terms of average games played (adjusted for quality of games as well) versus player value, and mentions the JOM trades.

https://hurlingpeoplenow.wordpress....-hawthorn-dropped-their-jaegerbomb-afltrades/

 

[Verdun]

I think you'd be safer gambling on 1 x First Round and 2 x Second Round picks producing more games than JOM, yes. Hawthorn probably has the list (at the moment) to make that gamble, but its most definitely a risk.

Also keep in mind Richmond as a team where the top 5-6 are quality players, but a lack of talent around them hamstrings their chances of success.

Hurling People Now has a pretty good write-up as to the value of various draft picks in terms of average games played (adjusted for quality of games as well) versus player value, and mentions the JOM trades.

https://hurlingpeoplenow.wordpress....-hawthorn-dropped-their-jaegerbomb-afltrades/

Good post...very hard to say with that avatar but yep good post

 

[Procrastinator35]

I think you'd be safer gambling on 1 x First Round and 2 x Second Round picks producing more games than JOM, yes. Hawthorn probably has the list (at the moment) to make that gamble, but its most definitely a risk.

Also keep in mind Richmond as a team where the top 5-6 are quality players, but a lack of talent around them hamstrings their chances of success.

Hurling People Now has a pretty good write-up as to the value of various draft picks in terms of average games played (adjusted for quality of games as well) versus player value, and mentions the JOM trades.

https://hurlingpeoplenow.wordpress....-hawthorn-dropped-their-jaegerbomb-afltrades/

We almost always pay overs at the trade table....That's what makes us such an appealing & fair club to deal with.

Not coincidentally....It's also how we get trades done.

And if you haven't learn't from our history by now....It delivers results.

Conservatism is for the herd.