Fan of Barlow.
But wouldnt we have just picked him up if that was the'Plan'?.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
List Mgmt. Official 2016 trade period discussion
- Thread starter Son_Of_God29
- Start date
- Tagged users None
But wouldnt we have just picked him up if that was the'Plan'?.
Vdubs
Hall of Famer
To me it seems to indicate you are suggesting Barlow is finished, at age 28, yet we were after Deledio, who is a good 6 months older.
Barlow is a BIG bodied mid, could be perfect back-up coming so cheaply.
Unless that broken leg is causing knee issues etc.
Last edited:
- Sep 25, 2015
- 1,189
- 1,041
- AFL Club
- Geelong
We approached Deledio to come to our club that's why he nominated originally Geelong.
- Sep 25, 2015
- 1,189
- 1,041
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Who knows maybe we were too confident a deal to land Deledio would of worked out but was all rushed last minute and failed and didn't seek out a backup option or thought another club would have picked up Barlow.
Not that I'm suggesting we get Barlow but we there a few reasons why we have overlooked him then but consider him now.
1) Freemantle would get compensation pick
2) The bargaining power changes in negotiation meaning his wage would be lower now
3) At the time of the free agency period we still had Caddy
Stan The Caddy
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jan 26, 2013
- 8,077
- 11,269
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Every player has a different use by date. Age is only one factor.
We don't need any more big bodied mids. We just traded one out partly due to the fact that we couldn't play him in the midfield as much as he would have liked.
What we need to be looking to bring in are players with elite speed and foot skills. Barlow provides neither of these.
Stan The Caddy
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jan 26, 2013
- 8,077
- 11,269
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Yes but he plays in a much different style to Barlow. I think that the Suns would be a great fit for Barlow, but not us.
- Sep 25, 2015
- 1,189
- 1,041
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Can someone put up a stat comparison between Deledio & Barlow for this season & career.
Vdubs
Hall of Famer
Agree with the age factor.
The big mids- who do we have now? Danger. Yes. Selwood, no. Tough as nails, but not really big. Nobody else jumps at me . At our peak, we had Corey, Ling, Rooke, Milburn, SJ, Chappy, Bartel, and Kelly and Ablett were strong as..
But Caddy's departure had a lot to do with $. That hyperbole by SHOCKING was well-prepared. Pity the work into trade week did not seem as well prepared.
You'd have to be convinced that if Caddy was fit and in form, he'd be ahead of SS and Menegola. And up until his knee, he was. The rest that was said was to appease us.
Barlow brings better skills and experience, and we are into the short term right now.
Last edited:
Stan The Caddy
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jan 26, 2013
- 8,077
- 11,269
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Even with a few injuries I just don't see a spot for him. Honestly, I'd rather pump more games into H-S than recruit and play Barlow.
Wouldn't say Barlow is renowned for his skills, IMO they're pretty average, he is a big guy who knows his way around a stoppage but we're pretty good around the clearances. Nor do I think our midfield is crying out for more experience, Selwood, Dangerfield, S.Selwood, Guthrie Blicavs and Menegola will all be 25 or older from round 1 next year. If anything we need to be giving more opportunity to our younger next group of mids like Cockatoo and Lang.
I agree with your assessment of Caddy, I thought he was our 3rd best inside mid. But the club chose to send him away when there was nothing forcing them to do so, so they must think we're alright for that kind of player.
Vdubs
Hall of Famer
With a few injuries, I hope we don't recruit him. About time we get a healthy one.
My sister's son is a mad Cat fan, 16 yo, and his favourite player in the AFL is Michael Barlow. And he knows his footy- he has McAvaney like knowledge. Point is, there must be something about him (Barlow) that could be of value to us. Some of us Cat fans just don't study WA and other teams as much as others do,
- Sep 25, 2015
- 1,189
- 1,041
- AFL Club
- Geelong
H-S isn't worth pursuing with. If he is regular in our best 22 we have some serious issues.
Vdubs
Hall of Famer
I'm reading that we could not afford him, that we have some salary cap issues and that perhaps, as you say, it gives room for GHS and even Murdoch, apart from Lang, Gregson and the others to step up.
I have no personal interest in Barlow, but he has played many match-winning games as both a mid, and as a Ling type. But we have SS. So Barlow could well be redundant.
Pivo
Brownlow Medallist
Now that I've let a few days pass I thought I'd try and articulate my thoughts on our trade period.
Vardy to West Coast for pick #72
Only the most hardened Vardy fan would have expected something in return for a guy who has suffered multiple injury set-backs and turned in a sub-par (and apparent pouting) 2016 season. I like Vardy, I have to admit that because I was recorded saying I liked him so I can't hide from that one but it was obvious we were never going to get anything for him, especially since he was also uncontracted. This one was a classic "player welfare" trade that Geelong seems renowned for (sometimes in spite of itself it seems). In Vardy's case, I don't have a problem with that approach.
Kersten to Fremantle for pick #63
Much like Kersten himself this trade is likely to be divisive. I've never really been much of Kersten fan (to the point I once classed him as a one trick pony) and I certainly don't consider him to be a KPP (except, maybe, as an undersized, leading full forward) which I've read some people claim him to be so, while he had his moments this year playing a role, I don't think losing him is that big a deal as he wasn't suddenly going to be the answer to our second big forward problem. Of course, not being much of a fan I'm going to say something like that.
Early in the piece it was reported that the Dockers we going to offer up their, then, pick 61. This news caused a few posters to lose their shit before it had even been made official (although it proved to be accurate as it turned out) but at the time I looked at what Fremantle were doing and thought "yeah, that is actually the approach I want Geelong to start taking with certain trades."
They knew Kersten wanted out and that he wasn't under contract. They then used the implied threat of getting him in the PSD to put some additional pressure on us. We probably could have tried harder to pry a higher selection out of Fremantle (possibly by adding a later pick to the deal - did that basic outside-the-box thinking occur?) but we were always on the back foot, much by our own design, with this one.
It was one of the few times Fremantle played it well this year.
Sure, I would have preferred a better pick but that is more from a club perspective rather than having a high opinion of Kersten's worth. It could certainly be argued that his form this year was on the improve, and not before time, to justify a better selection but if a guy doesn't want to sign a contract, can't get a regular gig in the back part of the year or in the finals and there is a threat of not getting anything in return, then I suppose the adage of "better something than nothing" could be applied.
Alternatively, since the club didn't seem to value him too highly anyway I suppose we could have taken the opportunity to make an example of him and try to send a message of our own by advising him to take his chances in the PSD (my gut says he still would have got to Freo anyway though).
Pick 92 to North Melbourne for Aaron Black
I don't mind Black. We basically got him for nothing and this is pretty much a trade for depth, although we did create that need by having both Kersten and Vardy come out of contract at the same time.
If he plays seniors next year and provides roughly the same that Kersten did then we haven't really lost anything in bringing him in and trading Kersten and Vardy out.
I'm not expecting much from him which is pretty much the same view I held with Kersten and, as the year wore on, Vardy.
Smedts + Future 1st Rounder + Pick 63 to Carlton for Tuohy + Future 2nd Rounder
Yep, that's right, along with the contentious decision to use our future first rounder in '17, we also threw the Kersten pick into the Tuohy deal as well. In itself, that pick is fairly meaningless but to me that begs the question - "why even do it?"
Remove that 63 selection and the trade already seemed fairly balanced. Tuohy is a likely upgrade over the disappointing (and often injured) Smedts and Tuohy fills a position we seem to wrestle with (even more so now the irreplaceable Enright has retired). The gap between our 2017 first and Carlton's 2017 second shouldn't, in theory, be too far apart either (but it is still a roll of the dice).
So if it was reasonably equal for both clubs why did we feel the need to throw in the later pick? Surely it wasn't to sweeten a deal that already seemed slightly weighed in Carlton's favour.
This trade didn't do much to remove the vibe that we are something of a soft touch at the trade table. A few days later I'm not quite as annoyed about it as I initially was (partly because I wanted us to land Tuohy) but I'm still struggling with it a bit. Trading out another first round selection (making it 3 years in a row we'll be without a first round selection in the draft unless we trade back in next year) doesn't fill me with too much joy.
The fact Tuohy was off contract, coupled with our seeming reluctance to push for better compensation with our own out-of-contract players when they seek to move, is cause for irritation. The needless addition of that late pick also added to my annoyance.
Sometimes it is the little things that can really grind gears.
And it is made worse by...
Caddy + Pick 56 to Richmond for Pick 24 + Pick 64
This one is causing me all sorts of problems and it is more around the way it went down rather than what we ended up getting. I suspect I will likely look contradictory in what I'm about to write.
After the PF loss I made a comment about our middle tier not really improving and, perhaps, a statement needed to be made regarding 1 or 2 of them. Caddy was most certainly in that bracket so I guess I can't really be too upset about him being traded in retrospect since I made that comment. That trade could be seen as a strong message (along with Motlop being shopped) to those second tier players to pull their fingers out.
Now that the initial shock that it actually happened has dissipated, I'm of the opinion, based on Caddy's career to date, pick 24 might not be too far off the mark. But part of the annoyance about this trade stems from the fact that we may have exacerbated the situation ourselves.
Oh, and the fact we gave Richmond a better later pick - again, why do it? It's the little things...
Caddy was under contract and didn't appear unhappy to remain at Geelong and Geelong seemed happy enough to keep him so this was a perfect opportunity to send a message (more so than putting Kersten in the PSD). If Richmond wanted him that badly (and Caddy ended up wanting Richmond) then the Tigers should have been made to cough up a little more than they did.
Caddy's actual worth doesn't come into play here as far as I concerned. The key for me is he was under contract and that should have enabled us to negotiate harder.
With the passage of time these deals might not look too bad but my frustration is more with the approach we seem to adopt come trade time.
I feel we could have stood our ground more on Tuohy and we didn't need to give Carlton that Pick 63 (despite it being innocuous).
I think we really should have played hardball on the contracted Caddy and we certainly didn't need to help improve Richmond's position later in the draft as part of the deal.
If we were so desperate to move up the draft order did we push harder for a better pick for Kersten (who did want out) or did we consider bundling our later picks to try and improve our position rather than trade out a 24 year old contracted player?
I mean, let's look more closely at how this played out since Geelong have come out and said they wanted to improve their draft position.
Adding up the points from picks #72 (Vardy), #63 (Kersten) & #42 (the Jansen/Walker trade from 2016) would have netted us 526 points which would have covered GWS' #37 pretty comfortably and that would have netted us two picks in the late 30s for little outlay.
If we had somehow managed to get #40 for Kersten instead of #63 then the points increase to 843 which is just 2 points shy of Brisbane's pick 22 which the Lions got for Handley.
Better yet, we could have talked to Gold Coast about their pick #26 which, as it turned out, they ended up swapping (along with #80) for the Bulldogs picks 35 and 43 - those picks are eerily similar to our #38 and #42.
Where was the creativity??
Do we have that serious a problem with our salary cap (I figured it was tight but perhaps it was even tighter than I thought)?
I hope we have some sort of plan to trade back into the 2017 first round. If we don't, I trust we have some sort of plan to land a second 1st round pick in 2018? (or are we actually exempt from the rule the AFL introduced for future trading)?
As I said, the trades might not be as bad as I initially thought but I do have an issue with the way we go about it (to use a well worn footy cliche) at trade time.
Apologies for the long-winded post, just a bit frustrated with how this trade period played out.
Vardy to West Coast for pick #72
Only the most hardened Vardy fan would have expected something in return for a guy who has suffered multiple injury set-backs and turned in a sub-par (and apparent pouting) 2016 season. I like Vardy, I have to admit that because I was recorded saying I liked him so I can't hide from that one but it was obvious we were never going to get anything for him, especially since he was also uncontracted. This one was a classic "player welfare" trade that Geelong seems renowned for (sometimes in spite of itself it seems). In Vardy's case, I don't have a problem with that approach.
Kersten to Fremantle for pick #63
Much like Kersten himself this trade is likely to be divisive. I've never really been much of Kersten fan (to the point I once classed him as a one trick pony) and I certainly don't consider him to be a KPP (except, maybe, as an undersized, leading full forward) which I've read some people claim him to be so, while he had his moments this year playing a role, I don't think losing him is that big a deal as he wasn't suddenly going to be the answer to our second big forward problem. Of course, not being much of a fan I'm going to say something like that.
Early in the piece it was reported that the Dockers we going to offer up their, then, pick 61. This news caused a few posters to lose their shit before it had even been made official (although it proved to be accurate as it turned out) but at the time I looked at what Fremantle were doing and thought "yeah, that is actually the approach I want Geelong to start taking with certain trades."
They knew Kersten wanted out and that he wasn't under contract. They then used the implied threat of getting him in the PSD to put some additional pressure on us. We probably could have tried harder to pry a higher selection out of Fremantle (possibly by adding a later pick to the deal - did that basic outside-the-box thinking occur?) but we were always on the back foot, much by our own design, with this one.
It was one of the few times Fremantle played it well this year.
Sure, I would have preferred a better pick but that is more from a club perspective rather than having a high opinion of Kersten's worth. It could certainly be argued that his form this year was on the improve, and not before time, to justify a better selection but if a guy doesn't want to sign a contract, can't get a regular gig in the back part of the year or in the finals and there is a threat of not getting anything in return, then I suppose the adage of "better something than nothing" could be applied.
Alternatively, since the club didn't seem to value him too highly anyway I suppose we could have taken the opportunity to make an example of him and try to send a message of our own by advising him to take his chances in the PSD (my gut says he still would have got to Freo anyway though).
Pick 92 to North Melbourne for Aaron Black
I don't mind Black. We basically got him for nothing and this is pretty much a trade for depth, although we did create that need by having both Kersten and Vardy come out of contract at the same time.
If he plays seniors next year and provides roughly the same that Kersten did then we haven't really lost anything in bringing him in and trading Kersten and Vardy out.
I'm not expecting much from him which is pretty much the same view I held with Kersten and, as the year wore on, Vardy.
Smedts + Future 1st Rounder + Pick 63 to Carlton for Tuohy + Future 2nd Rounder
Yep, that's right, along with the contentious decision to use our future first rounder in '17, we also threw the Kersten pick into the Tuohy deal as well. In itself, that pick is fairly meaningless but to me that begs the question - "why even do it?"
Remove that 63 selection and the trade already seemed fairly balanced. Tuohy is a likely upgrade over the disappointing (and often injured) Smedts and Tuohy fills a position we seem to wrestle with (even more so now the irreplaceable Enright has retired). The gap between our 2017 first and Carlton's 2017 second shouldn't, in theory, be too far apart either (but it is still a roll of the dice).
So if it was reasonably equal for both clubs why did we feel the need to throw in the later pick? Surely it wasn't to sweeten a deal that already seemed slightly weighed in Carlton's favour.
This trade didn't do much to remove the vibe that we are something of a soft touch at the trade table. A few days later I'm not quite as annoyed about it as I initially was (partly because I wanted us to land Tuohy) but I'm still struggling with it a bit. Trading out another first round selection (making it 3 years in a row we'll be without a first round selection in the draft unless we trade back in next year) doesn't fill me with too much joy.
The fact Tuohy was off contract, coupled with our seeming reluctance to push for better compensation with our own out-of-contract players when they seek to move, is cause for irritation. The needless addition of that late pick also added to my annoyance.
Sometimes it is the little things that can really grind gears.
And it is made worse by...
Caddy + Pick 56 to Richmond for Pick 24 + Pick 64
This one is causing me all sorts of problems and it is more around the way it went down rather than what we ended up getting. I suspect I will likely look contradictory in what I'm about to write.
After the PF loss I made a comment about our middle tier not really improving and, perhaps, a statement needed to be made regarding 1 or 2 of them. Caddy was most certainly in that bracket so I guess I can't really be too upset about him being traded in retrospect since I made that comment. That trade could be seen as a strong message (along with Motlop being shopped) to those second tier players to pull their fingers out.
Now that the initial shock that it actually happened has dissipated, I'm of the opinion, based on Caddy's career to date, pick 24 might not be too far off the mark. But part of the annoyance about this trade stems from the fact that we may have exacerbated the situation ourselves.
Oh, and the fact we gave Richmond a better later pick - again, why do it? It's the little things...
Caddy was under contract and didn't appear unhappy to remain at Geelong and Geelong seemed happy enough to keep him so this was a perfect opportunity to send a message (more so than putting Kersten in the PSD). If Richmond wanted him that badly (and Caddy ended up wanting Richmond) then the Tigers should have been made to cough up a little more than they did.
Caddy's actual worth doesn't come into play here as far as I concerned. The key for me is he was under contract and that should have enabled us to negotiate harder.
With the passage of time these deals might not look too bad but my frustration is more with the approach we seem to adopt come trade time.
I feel we could have stood our ground more on Tuohy and we didn't need to give Carlton that Pick 63 (despite it being innocuous).
I think we really should have played hardball on the contracted Caddy and we certainly didn't need to help improve Richmond's position later in the draft as part of the deal.
If we were so desperate to move up the draft order did we push harder for a better pick for Kersten (who did want out) or did we consider bundling our later picks to try and improve our position rather than trade out a 24 year old contracted player?
I mean, let's look more closely at how this played out since Geelong have come out and said they wanted to improve their draft position.
Adding up the points from picks #72 (Vardy), #63 (Kersten) & #42 (the Jansen/Walker trade from 2016) would have netted us 526 points which would have covered GWS' #37 pretty comfortably and that would have netted us two picks in the late 30s for little outlay.
If we had somehow managed to get #40 for Kersten instead of #63 then the points increase to 843 which is just 2 points shy of Brisbane's pick 22 which the Lions got for Handley.
Better yet, we could have talked to Gold Coast about their pick #26 which, as it turned out, they ended up swapping (along with #80) for the Bulldogs picks 35 and 43 - those picks are eerily similar to our #38 and #42
.Where was the creativity??
Do we have that serious a problem with our salary cap (I figured it was tight but perhaps it was even tighter than I thought)?
I hope we have some sort of plan to trade back into the 2017 first round. If we don't, I trust we have some sort of plan to land a second 1st round pick in 2018? (or are we actually exempt from the rule the AFL introduced for future trading)?
As I said, the trades might not be as bad as I initially thought but I do have an issue with the way we go about it (to use a well worn footy cliche) at trade time.
Apologies for the long-winded post, just a bit frustrated with how this trade period played out.
Last edited:
We have him for the next two years wouldn't hurt to back him in, at the very worst he'd a good first emergency. If he can overcome his limitations then he'd be a massive asset.
Im a Perth based Cats man.
Michael Barlow is a better version of Menegola. Just older.
Would fit seemlessly into alot of teams,Cats included. Half back or midfield.
Im happy to give time to Lang,Cockatoo etc instead of picking him up though.
Stan The Caddy
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jan 26, 2013
- 8,077
- 11,269
- AFL Club
- Geelong
You're a funny man Dubsy!
Seriously though, it's just one area that we don't need to be looking to bolster ATM. Particularly with a 28 year old. Don't forget, we also just sent Jimmy on his merry way aswell...
Stan The Caddy
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jan 26, 2013
- 8,077
- 11,269
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I strongly disagree.
Vdubs
Hall of Famer
Typically BRILLIANT post that sums up probably most posters grievances this week.Now that I've let a few days pass I thought I'd try and articulate my thoughts on our trade period.
Vardy to West Coast for pick #72
Only the most hardened Vardy fan would have expected something in return for a guy who has suffered multiple injury set-backs and turned in a sub-par (and apparent pouting) 2016 season. I like Vardy, I have to admit that because I was recorded saying I liked him so I can't hide from that one but it was obvious we were never going to get anything for him, especially since he was also uncontracted. This one was a classic "player welfare" trade that Geelong seems renowned for (sometimes in spite of itself it seems). In Vardy's case, I don't have a problem with that approach.
Kersten to Fremantle for pick #63
Much like Kersten himself this trade is likely to be divisive. I've never really been much of Kersten fan (to the point I once classed him as a one trick pony) and I certainly don't consider him to be a KPP (except, maybe, as an undersized, leading full forward) which I've read some people claim him to be so, while he had his moments this year playing a role, I don't think losing him is that big a deal as he wasn't suddenly going to be the answer to our second big forward problem. Of course, not being much of a fan I'm going to say something like that.
Early in the piece it was reported that the Dockers we going to offer up their, then, pick 61. This news caused a few posters to lose their shit before it had even been made official (although it proved to be accurate as it turned out) but at the time I looked at what Fremantle were doing and thought "yeah, that is actually the approach I want Geelong to start taking with certain trades."
They knew Kersten wanted out and that he wasn't under contract. They then used the implied threat of getting him in the PSD to put some additional pressure on us. We probably could have tried harder to pry a higher selection out of Fremantle (possibly by adding a later pick to the deal - did that basic outside-the-box thinking occur?) but we were always on the back foot, much by our own design, with this one.
It was one of the few times Fremantle played it well this year.
Sure, I would have preferred a better pick but that is more from a club perspective rather than having a high opinion of Kersten's worth. It could certainly be argued that his form this year was on the improve, and not before time, to justify a better selection but if a guy doesn't want to sign a contract, can't get a regular gig in the back part of the year or in the finals and there is a threat of not getting anything in return, then I suppose the adage of "better something than nothing" could be applied.
Alternatively, since the club didn't seem to value him too highly anyway I suppose we could have taken the opportunity to make an example of him and try to send a message of our own by advising him to take his chances in the PSD (my gut says he still would have got to Freo anyway though).
Pick 92 to North Melbourne for Aaron Black
I don't mind Black. We basically got him for nothing and this is pretty much a trade for depth, although we did create that need by having both Kersten and Vardy come out of contract at the same time.
If he plays seniors next year and provides roughly the same that Kersten did then we haven't really lost anything in bringing him in and trading Kersten and Vardy out.
I'm not expecting much from him which is pretty much the same view I held with Kersten and, as the year wore on, Vardy.
Smedts + Future 1st Rounder + Pick 63 to Carlton for Tuohy + Future 2nd Rounder
Yep, that's right, along with the contentious decision to use our future first rounder in '17, we also threw the Kersten pick into the Tuohy deal as well. In itself, that pick is fairly meaningless but to me that begs the question - "why even do it?"
Remove that 63 selection and the trade already seemed fairly balanced. Tuohy is a likely upgrade over the disappointing (and often injured) Smedts and Tuohy fills a position we seem to wrestle with (even more so now the irreplaceable Enright has retired). The gap between our 2017 first and Carlton's 2017 second shouldn't, in theory, be too far apart either (but it is still a roll of the dice).
So if it was reasonably equal for both clubs why did we feel the need to throw in the later pick? Surely it wasn't to sweeten a deal that already seemed slightly weighed in Carlton's favour.
And let's not forget the fact that Tuohy was out of contract.
This trade didn't do much to remove the vibe that we are something of a soft touch at the trade table. A few days later I'm not quite as annoyed about it as I initially was (partly because I wanted us to land Tuohy) but I'm still struggling with it a bit. Trading out another first round selection (making it 3 years in a row we'll be without a first round selection in the draft unless we trade back in next year) doesn't fill me with too much joy.
The fact Tuohy was off contract, coupled with our seeming reluctance to push for better compensation with our own out-of-contract players when they seek to move, is cause for irritation. The needless addition of that late pick also added to my annoyance.
Sometimes it is the little things that can really grind gears.
And it is made worse by...
Caddy + Pick 56 to Richmond for Pick 24 + Pick 64
This one is causing me all sorts of problems and it is more around the way it went down rather than what we ended up getting. I suspect I will likely look contradictory in what I'm about to write.
After the PF loss I made a comment about our middle tier not really improving and, perhaps, a statement needed to be made regarding 1 or 2 of them. Caddy was most certainly in that bracket so I guess I can't really be too upset about him being traded in retrospect since I made that comment. That trade could be seen as a strong message (along with Motlop being shopped) to those second tier players to pull their fingers out.
Now that the initial shock that it actually happened has dissipated, I'm of the opinion, based on Caddy's career to date, pick 24 might not be too far off the mark. But part of the annoyance about this trade stems from the fact that we may have exacerbated the situation ourselves.
Oh, and the fact we gave Richmond a better later pick - again, why do it? It's the little things...
Caddy was under contract and didn't appear unhappy to remain at Geelong and Geelong seemed happy enough to keep him so this was a perfect opportunity to send a message (more so than putting Kersten in the PSD). If Richmond wanted him that badly (and Caddy ended up wanting Richmond) then the Tigers should have been made to cough up a little more than they did.
Caddy's actual worth doesn't come into play here as far as I concerned. The key for me is he was under contract and that should have enabled us to negotiate harder.
With the passage of time these deals might not look too bad but my frustration is more with the approach we seem to adopt come trade time.
I feel we could have stood our ground more on Tuohy and we didn't need to give Carlton that Pick 63 (despite it being innocuous).
I think we really should have played hardball on the contracted Caddy and we certainly didn't need to help improve Richmond's position later in the draft as part of the deal.
If we were so desperate to move up the draft order did we push harder for a better pick for Kersten (who did want out) or did we consider bundling our later picks to try and improve our position rather than trade out a 24 year old contracted player?
I mean, let's look more closely at how this played out since Geelong have come out and said they wanted to improve their draft position.
Adding up the points from picks #72 (Vardy), #63 (Kersten) & #42 (the Jansen/Walker trade from 2016) would have netted us 526 points which would have covered GWS' #37 pretty comfortably and that would have netted us two picks in the late 30s for little outlay.
If we had somehow managed to get #40 for Kersten instead of #63 then the points increase to 843 which is just 2 points shy of Brisbane's pick 22 which the Lions got for Handley.
Better yet, we could have talked to Gold Coast about their pick #26 which, as it turned out, they ended up swapping (along with #80) for the Bulldogs picks 35 and 43 - those picks are eerily similar to our #38 and #42
Where was the creativity??
Do we have that serious a problem with our salary cap (I figured it was tight but perhaps it was even tighter than I thought)?
I hope we have some sort of plan to trade back into the 2017 first round. If we don't, I trust we have some sort of plan to land a second 1st round pick in 2018? (or are we actually exempt for the rule the AFL introduced for future trading)?
As I said, the trades might not be as bad as I initially thought but I do have an issue with the way we go about it (to use a well worn footy cliche) at trade time.
Apologies for the long-winded post, just a bit frustrated with how this trade period played out.
Caddy was definitely a player as supporters we had these on for.
If I have a dollar for every time I read potential next to caddys name I would be a billionaire or close to it. If You bypass all that he is a 24 year old B grader...
The sky isn't going to fall without him, he will be replaced, and we will move on without fuss.
I thought he had a real red hot crack at times and went in like a terrier.
Since he has hardly played any football he deserves another full season. Showed more than enough to deserve it
Who would You prefer?
Are you going with the philosophy needs vs best available or beat available vs needs?
Stan The Caddy
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jan 26, 2013
- 8,077
- 11,269
- AFL Club
- Geelong
It's one of the few silver linings to come out of the Caddy deal IMO. It may actually give H-S an opportunity to cement a spot in the team.
He along with Murdoch are the big winners out of this trade period as far as the Cats are concerned IMO.
Similar threads
- Poll
