Why not? He will practically cost us nothing Barlow. No cost only potential reward taking him pre season.
List Mgmt. Official 2016 trade period discussion
- Thread starter Son_Of_God29
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Why not? He will practically cost us nothing Barlow. No cost only potential reward taking him pre season.
Yeah Kersten out might force them to play Murdoch in a Gary Rohan like role. Not ideal from a structural perspective but it would suit Murdoch.
Anyway I think my way through the best 22 GHS isn't in it but he is in my top 26-28 so he'll get games at some point and if he plays well he'll stay in.
Vdubs
Hall of Famer
What about Murdoch- in your 22?
I really see him there IF , like Aaron Black, he gets his confidence on track.
Vdubs
Hall of Famer
Agree.
He was just not on my very myopic radar.
But if passes medical screening, I would welcome him warmly
Sorry, can't find any either... they might pop up later.
What are your thoughts on what we should go for with pick 24??
Do you want best available? Or would you prefer to draft for a need?
I'm personally in the draft best available opinion, as it sounds like from a lot of the draft reports that there may be some quality players around that mark.
The big footy draft guru knightmare has said that he believes there are 20 players abouts that could be considered at their best the number one pick. Only difference is they simply haven't been consistent enough. Doesn't sound too bad with pick 24 then? Unless it drastically tails off after20, but I wouldn't know.
I'm also excited for a cockatoo explosion in 17. Give him a big pre season and more time in the middle. The thought gives me goose skin if what him and Dangerfield exploding from the middle could look like!
Im unsure on the Murdoch call, im renowned board 'hater' of him but i like to think i'm a logical thinker and have made that decision on some good evidence.
Murdoch's confidence just isn't there and I have strong faith it never will be. Analyse his character on and off the field and you just don't see the competitor. You can see it in some players, the passion the determination.
He makes messy decisions at crucial times. Unlike Rowan he gets lost in traffic and has poor footskills when he's not booting it 40m+ (which to his credit he is good at). One thing about Geelong is our cleanliness working it forward - it cost us all year. Having a bloke like Murdoch in only hinders the development in that aspect of our game.
One more I'll add - and i don't blame Murdoch entirely, is that our youth seem to reach a 'mediocre' ceiling fast. Many posters here including myself have recognised a distinct lack in development from year to year, comparative to other clubs. Is it the club culture, environment, starvation of top end draft talent, recruiting and coaching staff or the coach himself? I've defended Scott for a very longtime, but I get the feeling I'll be grabbing my torches and pitch forks in the near future.
My 22 is pretty fluid since I don't know have a clue how we're going to try to play next year, different game styles have to different best 22s.
Pre-Kersten and Caddy leaving he was in close to all of them as a forward but it presumed a particular style of play which I don't think is as likely now.
In the last one I put on the site he was in it but if I made one right he wouldn't be.
Black could fill that niche that Kersten would have. I don't know how fit he is right now but without a full pre-season he has no chance.
I honestly wouldn't know how anyone here could analyse a players character especially off field. Have you met him before, or know anyone who has?
The only thing I would remotely have as evidence of a drop in confidence on field would a running defender who continuously chip kicking it sideways and a forward not going for goal when they are in range. I don't believe Murdoch has suffered from either of them.
I see a lot of criticism at our development. Overall I don't agree with most of the criticisms leveled. Murdoch is an interesting case though. Unlike most of our players he has been extremely durable on the injury front.
But for a guy his size he's pretty poor in the air and even we he bulked up his arms in 2014 it made little difference. But he is actually pretty good when he is playing instinctively . It you watch a clips of his goals from 2014 very few of them come from set shots and a large number of them are just opportunistic crumbs which is something we've lacked the last two years. He is pretty good at applying pressure. Which is why I want him up front.
Prior to Richmond trading for caddy reading the comments about him and type of player Caddy is , I thought wow hope we can get him for #15
Now after the trade, I feel ripped of and maybe he was just worth the same as Vardy - You guys pulled the wool over our eyes here
6th best mid thats injury prone and has issue's and is slow and doesnt get enough ball
Really cant work out how we fell for this
Now after the trade, I feel ripped of and maybe he was just worth the same as Vardy - You guys pulled the wool over our eyes here
6th best mid thats injury prone and has issue's and is slow and doesnt get enough ball
Really cant work out how we fell for this
- Feb 11, 2009
- 28,079
- 35,083
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- #rompingwins
Pick 24 for a player who is straight into your top 5. Not bad.
Remember you guys are ****ing shithouse.
Remember your station.
Remember you're a failure of a club.
JumpyHolden
Club Legend
- Apr 17, 2016
- 1,355
- 1,306
- AFL Club
- Geelong
What a load of crap right there!!
Menegola and SS were also hampered by injury throughout the year so if they were fit and in form they would have been streets ahead of Caddy, as it was Menegola in his limited games produced average figures that Caddy hasn't been able to produce during his whole career even when fit and in form...........
And if a fit Caddy was matched up against a fit SS, a fit SS would wipe the floor with Caddy. Your talking about a guy that won the Eagles B&F beating Kerr and Priddis 2 Brownlow medalists, Champion data had him ranked #1 eagles player that year as well. Caddy could only dream of SS's achievements, the drop kick couldn't even make it in our top 10 B&F, he's a slow disloyal one trick pony and evident our club xxxxxx up recruiting him in the first place.......... Yes we may have got better value for return only because he was contracted but realistic 24 is good value and can easily net us a better player...........
Disagree on the character part. We've got no way of knowing (doesn't stop plenty thinking they do though).
Far from convinced on Murdoch, and unlike others he's actually had plenty of chances. But I do see promise as a forward. He has always played his best football there, and looks the most dangerous. That may yet be worth a try.
a quick search reveals this about what you said about caddy in the past
Caddy- shows amazing signs of a strong skilled inside bull midfielder, could easily go up another level with 3-4 years under his belt now.
Than you have Duncan,Caddy and Guthrie who I assume we all agree are going to be good payers ,we are just not sure how good . All 3 should significantly improve next year and are about to hit the prime of their careers. This can be a really good starting 5 for the next 5+ years .
My belief is that Caddy,Duncan,Guthrie and Blicavs will all become A grade midfielders at some point and when it happens we will go close to winning a premiership
Caddy is a tough contested ball winner who has bucket loads of talent .
David the Cat
Moderator
- Moderator
- #7,690
Don't agree with your Caddy v Menegola/Scooter comparison but with you on Barlow. A better player than Caddy and has 3 or 4 seasons left in him. He's a class player...my only reservation is his body. If he's fit, he will be picked up...and he would fit with us IMO.
Pure_Ownage
TheBrownDog
So of that stuff I agree with for example Cadds doesn't run hard enough defensively and while he is a better mid than a forward of all our mids he is the best forward (i.e. impacts when forward) so it was the right call to play him there. It does help the salary cap and as far as attitude we can't know or not know without being inside the club, and we have a lot of depth in Caddy's position.
My issue is the bolded. On Wednesday night everyone knew at some stage Richmond were getting a first rounder off GWS for Deledio and for some reason we didn't. You could live with Caddy being traded for unders if they held out for a first rounder til 1.55pm and then traded for 24 at the last minute if Richmond refused. But they traded Caddy before Richmond even got that pick so of course there was nothing available! Doesn't look like they tried very hard to get a first rounder. Balme needed a scalp and they were chasing Caddy heavily-there is a good chance that at the last minute if it was a case of give the first rounder or we refuse to trade him that they would have given the first rounder-but we didn't even try. And when you consider the night before we traded out a first rounder the recruitment team would have known there was a premium on bringing another first rounder back in but yet they didn't push for it? doesn't make sense to me. It is all a bit mixed messages as Wellsy is saying Caddy wanted to go and we wanted to keep him but wanted to respect his wishes but your guy is saying we basically forced it (and took unders on it).
My issue is that we keep taking unders on players who depart and get schooled on their trade value. I don't think Wellsy's drafting is as bad as a lot of people are saying on the board this week-I don't have time to go through it now but if you do you will see his drafting is very good (most of the busts on the high value picks have been due to injuries after they were drafted not lack of talent) and he is also very good at getting high character people into the club which is why we don't have the big amount of off field scandals that a lot of clubs have. The issue with those types of people is because they have brought honest people in they then tend to honestly believe what they say, so I think when players through their managers come to Wellsy and say they have a reason to need to leave he honestly believes thats so and that we should help them. I think unfortunately the club underestimates the role of the player manager who will often lie and act more in their own best interests than the players and make stuff up.
Look at Caddy, Geelong obviously take unders on the trade (although might win eventually if we draft well at 24). Does Caddy benefit that much? Not really. He will be stuck behind Martin Cotchin and Prestia just as much as he was ever stuck behind Dangerfield and Selwood so he's not getting heaps more opportunity, he is unlikely to play a final for a while and possibly not for his whole career now. Richmond sink a long term contract and put someone in their top 10 highest paid players who is highly unlikely to ever become elite (I love the way he plays but he doesnt have the polish in his game to become elite his ceiling is B grade to A at best) so at best they break even on the trade IMO. Balmey has a small win as he can show his new bosses he can get stuff done. The bigger winner is Caddy's manager who gets a significantly better cut now Caddy has upped his contract length and salary. Given we know from Caddy's own comments that he was happy to stay or go I have a feeling a lot of it is probably his manager suggesting to him to take the Richmond offer because it's best for the manager that he does. Similar with Kersten really, he is not going to get more opportunities at Freo than he would have here so unless he is truly homesick is he better off? Not really. But you bet his manager is given how much extra salary cap room Freo have to us. Now there are genuine compassionate reasons why players sometimes need to move and I think clubs should always accomodate that, but 95 % of the cases where we take unders have no such reasons. So when we get told that a player 'needs' to go it's most of the time the manager deceiving us to try and get a better deal for himself or the player or both. Most of the time we think we are taking unders to help a player compassionately in view of the way they have helped the club, we are actually really just lining a manager's pockets and not giving the player something he really needs. The issue is that while most players are reasonably honest most player managers are liars, and I don't think a really honest guy like Wellsy can identify that well enough. I am happy for him to keep being in charge of drafting for a long time but when it comes to player contracts and negotiating deals for our players in trade week I think we would benefit if we can get someone else in to do it-someone who is very hard headed and cynical and understands how much lying there is in the business and can prevent us continually getting schooled by player managers.
Pure_Ownage
TheBrownDog
Barlow will be picked up but I am not sure if we have a spot for another inside mid in the side even with Caddy gone we have a surplus of that type. But he is still playing good footy and by all reports is an elite trainer so would be good for standards about the group. I doubt it though, if we pick up any delisted players I think it will more be a player of need type like a KPF or ruck.
Jhye Clark 13
07, 09, 11, 22
- Feb 16, 2007
- 80,935
- 98,874
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bulldogs, Pelicans, Saints
We almost traded for Ben Newton 2 years ago and now he's been delisted by Melbourne.
Worth another look or put him in the won't make it bracket?
Worth another look or put him in the won't make it bracket?
MacStradbroke
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 19, 2015
- 7,216
- 22,159
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Excellent post, I usually skip the long ones. Agree with nearly everything. Wells must have plans for those late picks that a slight shuffle will not alter. Simpson for one must be a cert. Good work.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.
- Apr 9, 2015
- 5,818
- 9,964
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Melbourne Renegades
He problem with Barlow and fitting him in our side is he can't really play another position. Caddy although also an inside mid could and did spend a lot of time forward. Hopefully Caddy's spot in the side is taken by a forward.
I wouldn't be against picking up Barlow but I think he'll go somewhere he can be guaranteed a game each week.
I wouldn't be against picking up Barlow but I think he'll go somewhere he can be guaranteed a game each week.
- Dec 19, 2015
- 2,489
- 4,970
- AFL Club
- Geelong
My honest assessment is that Im disappointed to lose him for 24 however he does have flaws. The best of caddy which we have seen in several games, is a tough line breaking midfielder who can clear the ball through traffic and kick goals.
The bad of caddy is a dumb footballer who in open space looks for some traffic to run into. His kicking is 50/50
Geelong brought caddy in to help selwood with the bullocking midfield work, I would say its only been a half success. It seems richmond have taken him for the same reason.
At geelong we were hoping he would become a gun, as times progressed, except for a few moments, I think he might be too dumb.
I wouldve been quite happy with a rd1 pick for him. 24 feels a bit short. I think he will help you guys but dont expect to be completely satisfied with his out put. He will impress early with his competitiveness but as time goes on youll see he isnt as effective as hoped.
MacStradbroke
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 19, 2015
- 7,216
- 22,159
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Do remember that. Watched him in the twos a few times late this season. The very definition of a list clogger for me.
Vdubs
Hall of Famer
What I glean from this diatribe is that you are very unhappy with Caddy- his selection maybe, his output this year post injury maybe, but mostly that he has left for Richmond.
Fair enough.
Agree that in the past SS was a very good player.
If you think that is the SS we have now, that is great for our team.
But he has been off THAT pace now for 3 seasons.
I'm patient though.
Vdubs
Hall of Famer
I think CS and team will be working on a new system to beat these "new age" style teams like Dogs, Saints, GWS etc whose modus operandi is sheer running at all costs and very quick delivery of ball by handpassing.
Watching the highlights this post season, Saints and even Pies have been trying to perfect this style, whereas Doggies have.
We have been apparently setting up our structures to beat the Hawks, and may have succeeded, but we must evolve further, yet our list and style of players won't allow us to beat Dogs at their game. And we successfully did stifle them this year twice, but there were definitely circumstances.
I guess this is a very long-winded reply, but I think we need to get best available skilled footballer, and I agree with you.
- Sep 18, 2014
- 22,803
- 20,971
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Man United, San Antonio Spurs
Barlow just takes another young guys spot in midfield. Would rather see Cockatoo and Lang have a crack, we need to start developing these young blokes.
Similar threads
- Poll
