Trading Places Snake's trading game list thread

[Knightmare]

Hah I got 10/10 without drafting

Might have to shift that down to an 8/10.

Didn't realise you didn't draft. Just assumed picks unlisted.

Really liked your list additions via trade though. Clean upgrades to best 22.

 

[harro92]

If you go through trade history around 80% of the time I'd estimate it's the team that gets the established player in those pick for player deals. And it's the same story with player for player deals, the team getting the best player. They're so often the winning deals.

The draft is a lottery. High picks are nice to have and lots of picks can be nice if you pick the eyes out of the draft and have an outstanding recruiting team, but even if you have all that, if you have nothing on your list in terms of experience and veteran leadership they're not getting anywhere - see Carlton pre Judd, Melbourne pre Roos, Richmond over the years, Brisbane, GWS before Mumford, Gold Coast etc.

So given this view, my gradings/comments will be heavily slanted towards those who have traded for the best players in the various deals. Over time I expect if you came back 5 or 10 years from now this comments would show through more clearly.

--
But being a trade game of this nature. It's so subjective.

The next person will have a different perspective and different values which could translate to completely contrasting grades/comments.

You do know Sandilands is injury prone, hard for him to show experience when he's never out there, I replaced Ibbotson with Mackie who has even more experience and I still have Johnson Ballantyne Pearce to name a few I actually gained a lot of experience too you can't rebuild with too many old players in your team


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Prochard123]

You do know Sandilands is injury prone, hard for him to show experience when he's never out there, I replaced Ibbotson with Mackie who has even more experience and I still have Johnson Ballantyne Pearce to name a few I actually gained a lot of experience too you can't rebuild with too many old players in your team


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mind your attitude. Knightmare has sacrifised a large amount of time to help make our game experience more complete. This feels like you're arguing with a teacher about your grade. He is merely giving us his opinion, I'm fine with you arguing on a few minor details but don't overdo it.

 

[harro92]

Mind your attitude. Knightmare has sacrifised a large amount of time to help make our game experience more complete. This feels like you're arguing with a teacher about your grade. He is merely giving us his opinion, I'm fine with you arguing on a few minor details but don't overdo it.

So I'm not allow to discuss why I've lost points for rebuilding, this is a forum sight I should be allowed to discuss


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Prochard123]

So I'm not allow to discuss why I've lost points for rebuilding, this is a forum sight I should be allowed to discuss


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I won't spend any more time on a comment by someone who clearly didn't comprehend my message.

 

[harro92]

I won't spend any more time on a comment by someone who clearly didn't comprehend my message.

No just choose to ignore it as all I'm doing is discussing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Knightmare]

You do know Sandilands is injury prone, hard for him to show experience when he's never out there, I replaced Ibbotson with Mackie who has even more experience and I still have Johnson Ballantyne Pearce to name a few I actually gained a lot of experience too you can't rebuild with too many old players in your team


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ibbotson and Mackie counter one another out. Mackie I agree is slightly better (on current performance) but Ibbotson being younger should have more footy in him and would be the pick of the two. With Geelong rushing players out the door Mackie doesn't have much time left.

The reason for my grading of Fremantle is the loss of Fyfe. He is the second best player (after Dangerfield) in the game and the most dominating stoppage specialist in the game. Unless he falls apart, he is a loss Fremantle can't afford under any circumstance. He is the piece to build around. Had Fyfe not been traded, I'd have Fremantle at an acceptable 4/10 (with 5/10 being the rough median grade).

The major factor in my grading is ins v outs. O'Rourke is not AFL standard. Nor is Melksham. Corr I'm skeptical about and if he does make it, it's as a role playing stopper. The list additions v the list departures don't excite me.

 

[harro92]

Ibbotson and Mackie counter one another out. Mackie I agree is slightly better (on current performance) but Ibbotson being younger should have more footy in him and would be the pick of the two. With Geelong rushing players out the door Mackie doesn't have much time left.

The reason for my grading of Fremantle is the loss of Fyfe. He is the second best player (after Dangerfield) in the game and the most dominating stoppage specialist in the game. Unless he falls apart, he is a loss Fremantle can't afford under any circumstance. He is the piece to build around. Had Fyfe not been traded, I'd have Fremantle at an acceptable 4/10 (with 5/10 being the rough median grade).

The major factor in my grading is ins v outs. O'Rourke is not AFL standard. Nor is Melksham. Corr I'm skeptical about and if he does make it, it's as a role playing stopper. The list additions v the list departures don't excite me.

May I message u as I would like to discuss this further


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[harro92]

Ibbotson and Mackie counter one another out. Mackie I agree is slightly better (on current performance) but Ibbotson being younger should have more footy in him and would be the pick of the two. With Geelong rushing players out the door Mackie doesn't have much time left.

The reason for my grading of Fremantle is the loss of Fyfe. He is the second best player (after Dangerfield) in the game and the most dominating stoppage specialist in the game. Unless he falls apart, he is a loss Fremantle can't afford under any circumstance. He is the piece to build around. Had Fyfe not been traded, I'd have Fremantle at an acceptable 4/10 (with 5/10 being the rough median grade).

The major factor in my grading is ins v outs. O'Rourke is not AFL standard. Nor is Melksham. Corr I'm skeptical about and if he does make it, it's as a role playing stopper. The list additions v the list departures don't excite me.

This is not an attack or anything bad just discussion

I believe that Melksham and O'Rourke are decent depth midfielders, one went for pick 25 last season and the other for pick 19 the year before and both still relatively young, Corr was added for depth wise as well, once again not an attack I know you but your time into this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Knightmare]

This is not an attack or anything bad just discussion

I believe that Melksham and O'Rourke are decent depth midfielders, one went for pick 25 last season and the other for pick 19 the year before and both still relatively young, Corr was added for depth wise as well, once again not an attack I know you but your time into this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm yet to see evidence from either Melksham or O'Rourke.

Melksham hasn't been above 300 disposals since 2013 and won't have gotten any better with last year out of the game. Never had a season with more than 160 contested possessions. Not a great ball user. Never had 100 marks in a season. There is nothing to him I view as adequate as more than depth. Never more than 65 clearances in a season. Not even 80 tackles in a season. His numbers are VFL standard.
Given you're playing a trading game, you're likely a Supercoach player, so to put those numbers in a more easily comparable way. As a midfielder 105+ is premium territory when you look through the names that score that every year, then 90+ is the minimum adequate standard for a midfielder. If you're below that, even playing some forward minutes, unless you're averaging 2 goals a game (Melksham has in no seasons averaged even 1 per game) then that isn't enough.

O'Rourke can't find the footy either with a career high 21 disposals his best so far. Never more than 1 goal in a game. Never more than 10 contested possessions or more than 4 clearances. Like Melksham, his numbers are VFL standard and I struggle to see him making the grade.

Corr I've seen enough of. In the modern game I view it as being essential to be a dominant 1v1 key defender (to the level that you're taking marks from these contests) and an intercept mark. 100+ marks per 20 games is the standard I expect from key defenders. Corr probably can do 60 per 20 games (his best is 54 from 19 games) which is far from adequate with his 163 disposals in that season poor. At 22 now, the expectation is that he is an established player. He is adequate enough as someone who can step in as required and play a role. But as more than depth, I would not be comfortable with recruiting him.

 

[harro92]

I'm yet to see evidence from either Melksham or O'Rourke.

Melksham hasn't been above 300 disposals since 2013 and won't have gotten any better with last year out of the game. Never had a season with more than 160 contested possessions. Not a great ball user. Never had 100 marks in a season. There is nothing to him I view as adequate as more than depth. Never more than 65 clearances in a season. Not even 80 tackles in a season. His numbers are VFL standard.
Given you're playing a trading game, you're likely a Supercoach player, so to put those numbers in a more easily comparable way. As a midfielder 105+ is premium territory when you look through the names that score that every year, then 90+ is the minimum adequate standard for a midfielder. If you're below that, even playing some forward minutes, unless you're averaging 2 goals a game (Melksham has in no seasons averaged even 1 per game) then that isn't enough.

O'Rourke can't find the footy either with a career high 21 disposals his best so far. Never more than 1 goal in a game. Never more than 10 contested possessions or more than 4 clearances. Like Melksham, his numbers are VFL standard and I struggle to see him making the grade.

Corr I've seen enough of. In the modern game I view it as being essential to be a dominant 1v1 key defender (to the level that you're taking marks from these contests) and an intercept mark. 100+ marks per 20 games is the standard I expect from key defenders. Corr probably can do 60 per 20 games (his best is 54 from 19 games) which is far from adequate with his 163 disposals in that season poor. At 22 now, the expectation is that he is an established player. He is adequate enough as someone who can step in as required and play a role. But as more than depth, I would not be comfortable with recruiting him.

Yeah but your forgetting these are depth players not star players they are there only for injuries, but anyway thanks for your time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Crowowowow]

4 out of 10 for me, decent as it was my first trade game, learnt a few lessons early on but im excited for the next one

 

[Prochard123]

4 out of 10 for me, decent as it was my first trade game, learnt a few lessons early on but im excited for the next one

Yeah apart from your earliest trade with me you handled 90% of your trades really well

 

[Mitchell54]

Do we have another judge aswell Prochard123 ?
If you can Knightmare. can you tell me which of my trades were the better ones and which were the worst.

 

[Snake Charmer]

On request from Prochard123

1. A rating on the coach's performance out of 10
2. Some comment regarding the coach's progress
3. Some suggestions regarding how you would've approached the situation with the same club.

---

*5/10 being a rough median without averaging all the numbers out.


----


Gold Coast:
1. 5/10
2. Solid draft with list needs reasonably well met and value added average-good. Setterfield at 6 is a particularly good get, Garthwaite at 50 may turn out well, McLarty, Bolton and Fox as rookies also solid. Trading relative for me in the negative on value + quality of ins/outs. Trades 4), 8), 9) among the better trades.
3. Needs more star power and more quality experience.

--
Essendon:
1. 8/10
2. Solid draft with Tiziani late and S.Darcy my favourite picks. Trading was good in parts, not as good in other parts, trades 3, 4, 5, 6 were the better trades.
3. I like the general view of trading towards making the list stronger - giving up several pieces for a greater piece. I say keep that strategy up and the list can continue to improve. From a list needs perspective slightly better balanced. Cameron and Wingard make that front half look a lot more formidable and Heeney and Petracca also are excellent pieces as mid/fwds. I'd just want to add a premium ruck to the fold.

--
Richmond:
1. 4/10
2. Trades 8-14 are more to my liking than the other trades with Goldstein, Vince, Thompson and D.Rich gets I like at those prices. I've never been one for trading up the draft with picks typically overrated relative to established players. Through the draft Perryman is the selection I really like but the other ones relatively I'm not as keen on.
3. Get a worthwhile key forward or two (tough going without Riewoldt) and make some moves if possible for some better young players from opposition teams and shuffle the deck some more with Richmond's young talent for the most part not impressing me.

--
Melbourne:
1. 2/10 (would be helpful next time if all trades were listed as it took time to compare against Melbourne's team list and track down trades)
2. Some under the radar additions I like. Ricky Henderson, Ben Ronke, Toby Nankervis. Otherwise the net loss is much greater than the net gain. Several of the losses trouble me: Viney, Jones, Vince, Petracca, O.McDonald among others. It's not a list I feel as comfortable with as Melbourne's current list.
3. I'd hold off on moving established players and young players who look like potential guns. More high end talent who can contribute now needed with Melbourne fans wanting to see finals footy.

--
Collingwood:
1. 10/10
2. Solid draft with Hayward and Walker (though undrafted) the two I like for value, the others ok enough without being my picks. The trading is what I like from Collingwood and what has set Collingwood apart in this game. Established players were added and the best 22 was enhanced with the tall core of Talia, Reid, Moore, Jenkins and Grundy much nicer than what Collingwood in reality have and a good balance across the best 22 also exists that doesn't in Collingwood's actual team. McVeigh down back for experience and skills, Hartlett for outside run and hurt factor and Greene up forward for another really good forward who can go through the midfield. What made Collingwood's trading great was that best 22 enhanced, list talent was upgraded but then it was all done in positions of relative list needed which makes it successful. Other than the Langdon, Fasolo and S.Reid trades Collingwood gained much more than it lost.
3. Keep going after players who improve the clubs best 22.

--
Fremantle:
1. 2/10
2. A mixed bag. Relatively liked the (national) draft with a good blend of mature agers later and Romensky a good value get. Rookie draft not so much. Barrett as a DFA good get and can play. Some positive trades, Langdon + + Miles + Lonergan trades relatively positive trades. Losses of Fyfe hurts a lot and while necessary for rebuilding, losing Sandilands, Mundy and Ibbotson dispiriting.
3. It's all about adding established young players from here. The likes of O'Rourke, Corr, Melksham particularly I'm not big on. More of a focus on gaining best 22 or future best 22 players is needed.

--
Hawthorn:
1. 2/10
2. Not huge on any of the additions through the draft. Graham is the relatively more solid. The others are more speculative. Through trade some substantial losses. Liberatore was a good get, Sheridan trade relatively for me in the positive. But losses of Breust, Birchall, Gunston hurt a lot. Trades of Douglas and Henderson would have me pulling out my hair, like them both. As has been Hawthorn's offseason philosophy for a long time. Men win. An offseason that takes Hawthorn from premiership contender to probably missing the top 8.
3. Giving up too much to get into the draft. Established players need to be rated more highly and young established players need adding if the focus is long term.

--
Western Bulldogs
1. 10/10
2. Picks ok value consistently across picks without any real home run choices where I see exceptional value. What was exceptional was the trading. Not much lost with Stringer and to lesser extents Crameri and Suckling lost. I flat out love the trading away of youngish, unproven players for established players who can improve a best 22. Improved best 22 and improved probability of going back to back. Well done.
3. Keep trading unproven youth for players who enhance clubs best 22. That's what it's all about.

--
Geelong
1. 2/10
2. Not a draft I'm keen on. Mutch is the only selection I like on value, Gallucci maybe speculatively given attributes. Other selections aren't great. Trading away Dangerfield, J.Selwood, Blicavs and Guthrie is disastrous with compensation not sufficient. Trades for Jack Viney, Luke Breust and Robbie Gray excellent. Overall though net losses much greater than net gains.
3. Don't trade star power, trade for star power. Particularly with Geelong being in a good situation to contend in 2017.

--
Carlton
1. 5/10
2. Fisher + Begley solid choices. With the others overlooked it's not an ideal group. Trades of Murphy + D.Thomas unwise for such late picks. The Ablett and S.Reid trades were the good ones. Net gains and net losses roughly counteract one another overall.
3. Keep gaining established players and don't be so quick to move your own established players, particularly if the currency in return is so little.

--
Adelaide
1. 4/10
2. Draft choices solid. Same story as in above situations regarding trades. I like the trades were established players are traded in, don't like the trades where the established high level performer is traded out. More lost than gained with more best 22 standard players by my count leaving the coming.
3. Keep the established, high level players and trade for those that you can. A must do as a top 8 side and for all teams really.

--
GWS
1. 1/10
2. Picks unimpressive and have lost a huge opportunity to capitalise on value that GWS had in the form of such a long list of special players through the clubs academy. I love the list of established players added but this is one of the rare times I would say that the established players added is too much to the cost of future success. GWS have such an overwhelmingly dominating list now that they're favourites to win the 2017 flag. Some great, great long term pieces in the form of young established have been lost over the long term at the cost of in some cases small upgrades, in other cases slight downgrades. The result of this is a much shortened premiership window with an unnecessary urgency to win the flag now. GWS are the only team in the competition who don't require such a stance and as such I have to penalise GWS with a poor grade.
3. Get the value through the academies. Have the picks needed to get them. Stick by the young established players. The players to trade out in GWS situation are those outside best 22 types with talent - those are the players who should be moved for players who can enhance the clubs best 22.

--
West Coast
1. 10/10 (trade grade only with draft picks not listed). If a good draft was had I'd move this up to a 10 but that information is not available and as such can't do that.
2. Adding Dangerfield, Coniglio, Lobb, Tomlinson and Blicavs in a monumental win. Gaff is a loss and Mitchell is a loss, but seriously great trading made that has substantially elevated the quality of the clubs best 22. Well done.
3. Keep improving your best 22. Your approach to trading is right and your team is better as a result.

--
North Melbourne
1. Can't grade on picks not seeing any. Trade grade: 3/10.
2. Love the addition of Gawn. That's a won trade. Getting as much for Clarke as you did, getting pick 3 in that Durdin + Daw trade and that future 2nd round pick for Z.Jones + Cunningham trade I like. Otherwise I wasn't keen on the other moves made. The compensation for players lost otherwise was not sufficient. Trade of Goldstein is not one I would have made and really strongly dislike, he should have been kept, even after adding Gawn unless a special standard young, franchise quality key forward was on offer.
3. While North need to get younger established young players is a better, higher % way to do it than through the draft. The trades for me where things went wrong was when trying to move up the draft, too high of a weighting placed on moving up the draft order is reason for grade I gave.

--
Port Adelaide
1. 4/10 (trade grade only given no picks listed)
2. Gibbs was a good get and also like the Motlop addition. Otherwise net loss slightly greater than net gain through trade with Gray particularly a big loss.
3. While this applies to almost all playing this game, too trigger happy with the clubs better players. Don't let established, high level players go unless you're getting clearly better in return. Several pieces for one doesn't make a trade winning. The focus should be the vast majority of the time on getting the best piece/best player in a deal.

--
Sydney
1. 1/10
2. Not sure what I'm looking at with no picks or trades listed. Looking at the player absenses and specifically the weakened key position stocks and beyond Sandilands weakened ruck stocks, I'm not liking the look of this side. The top end appears much weaker than Sydney's from a quick peek.
3. Keep your better players, trade to improve club best 22.

--
Brisbane
1. 5/10
2. Really like the draft. Scheer + Drew both strong gets. Stewart late can also represent value. Olango as a rookie I feel is a long shot, but if three players come out of a draft from those picks. Brisbane have done well. Trades on the other hand I'm not keen on the value. The losses of Rockliff and Rich I feel works against Brisbane who need more established players on a list that needs the support of veterans to have any shot at developing. The Houli and Swallow trades are the only ones on value I like, otherwise in the value battle Brisbane lost out in most of the other trades.
3. Go for more established players. Brisbane need some players other than Stefan Martin over 27 to experience any development. More established young players also needed, with this needing to make up the clubs greater core, even if it means trading away the clubs young, more speculative talent to make it happen.

--
St Kilda
1. Trade grade: 5/10
2. No information on picks so can't grade on that. Value gained + lost around equal in each trade. Little gained, little lost.
3. Get more involved and take some more risks. Trade some young speculative players for established young players is direction Saints need to take.

Aweosme stuff mate, really appreciate it. I think you have hit the nail on the head with my list, I really struggled to attract any superstar talant. Hoping Smith + Kennedy could become those types of players. Think I'm 1 really quality mid away from being a dangerous side. Hopefully Setterfield or Brodie could become that guy...

Thanks again mate

 

[Prochard123]

Do we have another judge aswell Prochard123 ?
If you can Knightmare. can you tell me which of my trades were the better ones and which were the worst.

Yes we have Snoop dog, He's about half way through the teams.

 

[Prochard123]

Some teams already a finalised weighed score, msg me for the details.

Otherwise I'll release them after everything is completed.

All clubs.

 

[Prochard123]

Snoop:
Richmond


Thought did a really good job given the brief they set for themselves. Only really gave up JR and whilst Ellis boys who are good but Brandon has question marks. I think Corey is good and would have held him. Am a bit worried that went for sugar hit with older types but they did improve the draft position and get two picks in the teens which was clever.



Trades – 7.5/10


All deals pretty fair in my opinion. Standout was getting # 19 for Yarran because even not knowing he would ultimately retire the reality is I don’t think any club would have given pick 19 for him after he missed this year. I also wouldn’t have done the Goldstein deal. Hard to value him but it’s a personal choice. I also wouldn’t have done Nankervis trade.


Having said that the standout was getting Crouch and Milera for Jack and then improving 10 spots. Milera is a pick 12(?) from last year and so getting that was enough but to then get Crouch and the improved pick a win for me.


The other big win for Riley Knight in. Rate him highly and think Townsend average.


Rest of the trades were about right for me.


Big question for me was given the trading out of Riewoldt other than drafting in a delisted bloke in Schulz did they look for alternatives at other clubs. Also would have liked to have seen Corey Ellis stay.



National Draft – 8.5/10


Really good job for mine. Two have 2 10-17 picks was a win. English a talent and will take time to see it but astute at that selection. Perryman a ripper and great get at 17. He is well rated as an allround footballer. Later on to get Rioli at 80 I thought was good as well.



Rookie Draft – 7.5/10


McInerney good get at that pick. Loads of upside to him.



Best 22 View


Team isn’t listed but can tell that team has improved the high end talent. Quality of mids gone through the roof and they have experience. Also some high end talent (Matera, Knight) to come through with Perryman and English I thought was good. Problem is there is nobody really to kick to of quality.


Assume the best 22 would be;


B MCKENZIE – RANCE - GRIMES

HB RICH – BATCHELOR - VLAUSTIN

C PRESTIA – MARTIN - VINCE

HF CADDY – GRIFFITHS - KNIGHT

F RIOLI – SCHULZ - RIOLI JNR

FOLL GOLDSTEIN – COTCHIN - THOMPSON

INT MARKOV – SHORT – HAMPSON - CONCA

Knightmare:

Richmond:
1. 4/10
2. Trades 8-14 are more to my liking than the other trades with Goldstein, Vince, Thompson and D.Rich gets I like at those prices. I've never been one for trading up the draft with picks typically overrated relative to established players. Through the draft Perryman is the selection I really like but the other ones relatively I'm not as keen on.
3. Get a worthwhile key forward or two (tough going without Riewoldt) and make some moves if possible for some better young players from opposition teams and shuffle the deck some more with Richmond's young talent for the most part not impressing me.

Final weighed score=6.0/10

 

[Prochard123]

Snoop:

Essendon



Trades – 9/10


Goddard for pick 18 was a win. Never happen in real world so great work on that one. Equally getting Franklin in was a good get albeit the price was high but it was fair but then to on trade him for Cameron is staggering good. Heeney trade was another well done because whilst the price wasn’t cheap he is a 10 year gun so you take them every day of the week and if need be pay fair / overs to get them.


What I couldn’t understand was the last trade a 1st round pick, McGovern and McDonald for Wingard. He is good but he isn’t that good. For mine Bonner and Morgan cancel each other out so yeah I think Essendon went overs on that.


Probably also wouldn’t have coughed up # 1 for Petracca. He is good but that was a great pick in this draft. Granted McDonald thrown in and could look back in a few years and say was astute. Call that neutral for now.


Ultimately to get Cameron, Heeney, Wingard, Petracca into the side and then trade in pick 18



National Draft – 8/10


Yep good drafting here as well. Ridley was a good get at 29 and I am a big fan. I had him 15-20. Williamson and Tiziani speculative but low picks so to be expected.


Rookie Draft – 8.5/10


Darcy and Larkey both good gets for mine. Look both are speculative but they could both work. Darcy hands at the ruck are amazing. As good as have seen. He clearly needs to lose weight but clubs back themselves on that score. Larkey will take a whilst as is as think as wire but has a knack of being in good spots. Could play both ends.


Best 22 View


That’s a best 22 and its improved in the areas of their greatest weaknesses. Astute and job well done.

Knightmare:

Essendon:
1. 8/10
2. Solid draft with Tiziani late and S.Darcy my favourite picks. Trading was good in parts, not as good in other parts, trades 3, 4, 5, 6 were the better trades.
3. I like the general view of trading towards making the list stronger - giving up several pieces for a greater piece. I say keep that strategy up and the list can continue to improve. From a list needs perspective slightly better balanced. Cameron and Wingard make that front half look a lot more formidable and Heeney and Petracca also are excellent pieces as mid/fwds. I'd just want to add a premium ruck to the fold.

Final weighed score=8.3/10

 

[Prochard123]

Snoop:


Gold Coast



Be useful to understand the strategy the coach went in with but clear wanted to get senior experience in and was willing to give up quality players / picks to do it. Jones, Smith, Scully, Himmelberg, Jetta, Campbell, Witts would all walk into the starting side for mine and really only lost Ablett & Harbrow who are closer to the end and Day who is week to week in the best 22 with Wright and Lynch the two entrenched. Overall that side was improved significantly and they kept 3 high picks as well.


Trades - 8/10


Overall thought it was really good but largely due to the trading that happened via the Giants.


The deals with GWS were clearly to the Suns advantage. Smith would be a 10-15 pick in the open market, Kennedy close to 10 and scully would be late 20’s so to get those three for Martin (and he is good), McKenzie who is on his last chance probably and a pick 8 is a great deal for the Suns. As much because they are 3 senior players that make the Suns a lot stronger game 1. That deal would never get done in real world on those terms.


The Himmelberg deal is a clear win for the Suns. He is very highly rated at the Giants and will see a lot of game time next year.


Most of the other trades were at the margins for me and looked pretty fair.


National Draft – 7.5/10


Paid overs for Brodie in y opinion. I had him around 10. Setterfield was about right and Scrimshaw a terrific get at 12. Garthwaite was probably around the mark but real issues on his kicking and without seeing who was still available hard to judge. LeBois was a bit overs for mine as consistency and competitiveness an issue. Junker a really nice get. I rate him highly.


Rookie Draft – 9/10


Sam McClarty a great get at that point and I think Bolton and Fox are solid. Gets the 9 because think really nailed getting Sam. I had him around 70 in mine and few others even had him which I was staggered at because he was I the top 15 discussion at start of year and injuries hampered him



Best 22 View


Its improved a lot. For mine wouldn’t have Talia there would have Himmelberg in a pocket and Thompson at FB. I would also have Fiorini or CEY in there ahead of Brodie

Knightmare:

Gold Coast:
1. 5/10
2. Solid draft with list needs reasonably well met and value added average-good. Setterfield at 6 is a particularly good get, Garthwaite at 50 may turn out well, McLarty, Bolton and Fox as rookies also solid. Trading relative for me in the negative on value + quality of ins/outs. Trades 4), 8), 9) among the better trades.
3. Needs more star power and more quality experience.



Final weighed score=6.5

 

[Prochard123]

Snoop:

Fremantle




Its clearly an improved side. Really only gave up Fyfe who was long term quality and got in Gunston, Parker, Hombsch and Kelly.


Trades – 8/10


Not sure what to think. On the whole I like as the best 22 is improved.


The Fyfe deal I would have also done and Parker was a win to. Paid a big price but a quality player. The Ebert rading was clever as was the Melksham and Corr trade.


I wouldn’t have done the Gunston deal. Think the price for him was well overs.


On the above I would have given you a higher score but saw little point in bringing on blokes like Mackie who has a year left and then name him in 2. ORourke don’t see the point and equally bringing in players like Lonergan, Meksham same. Maybe 1-2 but not 4.



National Draft – 9.5/10


Outstanding draft for mine. Bowes was a real win at that pick, Marshall about right and Cumming a steal. Like the selection of Barrett as a DFA as well.



Rookie Draft – 6/10


Quite like Jack Rolls but Mason is done for mine and Copper Jones to be fair have no idea of so cant judge.

Knightmare:

Fremantle:
1. 2/10
2. A mixed bag. Relatively liked the (national) draft with a good blend of mature agers later and Romensky a good value get. Rookie draft not so much. Barrett as a DFA good get and can play. Some positive trades, Langdon + + Miles + Lonergan trades relatively positive trades. Losses of Fyfe hurts a lot and while necessary for rebuilding, losing Sandilands, Mundy and Ibbotson dispiriting.
3. It's all about adding established young players from here. The likes of O'Rourke, Corr, Melksham particularly I'm not big on. More of a focus on gaining best 22 or future best 22 players is needed.

Final weighed score=5.2/10

 

[Prochard123]

Snoop:

Hawks



At the end of the day 2 A graders out of the side and none back in (maybe 1 in Libba). Good to trade up but I would have taken the pill and stayed with late picks and preserved some mid tier talent (eg Duryea)



Trades – 6/10


Not really a fan of what happened here. Bruest is a talent and a goal kicker so losing he and Gunston weakens them for mine. Bruce hot and cold, McCarthy coming from long way back. Libba a good get and rate Webb but unproven. Others neither he or there. To get those players for what went out wasn’t great.



National Draft – 8/10


Was pretty good. I don’t rate Graham bc he is slow but quite like Kerr and Parfitt was a good get.


Rookie Draft – 6/10


Good to get Henry that late in the draft. I liked Noonan so was surprised he didn’t get taken.


Knightmare:

Hawthorn:
1. 2/10
2. Not huge on any of the additions through the draft. Graham is the relatively more solid. The others are more speculative. Through trade some substantial losses. Liberatore was a good get, Sheridan trade relatively for me in the positive. But losses of Breust, Birchall, Gunston hurt a lot. Trades of Douglas and Henderson would have me pulling out my hair, like them both. As has been Hawthorn's offseason philosophy for a long time. Men win. An offseason that takes Hawthorn from premiership contender to probably missing the top 8.
3. Giving up too much to get into the draft. Established players need to be rated more highly and young established players need adding if the focus is long term.


Final weighed score=4.4/10

 

[Prochard123]

Snoop:

WB



Overall Rating – 8.5/10


No list of trades so cant assess this team that well albeit I note that some talent came in the door in Walker, Lynch and Tyson. Seemingly no Stringer and Libertore



Trades – N/A


Cant assess as no list of trades



National Draft – 8.5/10


Excellent drafting. All really good players and taken about right or better than expected.



Rookie Draft – 9/10


Both really good players.

Knightmare:
Western Bulldogs
1. 10/10
2. Picks ok value consistently across picks without any real home run choices where I see exceptional value. What was exceptional was the trading. Not much lost with Stringer and to lesser extents Crameri and Suckling lost. I flat out love the trading away of youngish, unproven players for established players who can improve a best 22. Improved best 22 and improved probability of going back to back. Well done.
3. Keep trading unproven youth for players who enhance clubs best 22. That's what it's all about.

Final weighed score=9.3/10

 

[Prochard123]

Snoop:

Collingwood


Was good to see the brief and certainly the List Manager delivered on it. Some really good talent in the door and bar Adams, Fasolo, Crisp and Varcoe nothing really hurts. Recruiting was also really good and ticked the boxes they need to.


Trades – 9.5/10


Greene a steel. Who was doing GWS!


Was good to see the brief outlined by the coach and thought it was pretty spot on. Cant say I like seeing Adams walk out the door but it was a good trade in the sense Collingwood have inside mids a plenty and they desperately need a key back. They got a good one. Equally a really good deal to get Josh Jenkins for #28 and White. Two clear problems almost immediately fixed. Langdon for Collins was another win. I rate Langdon and Freo will to but Collins fills another need for the Pies so they have 3 good defenders back there now.


Hamish Hartlett was another really good get for pick #28. Cutler was a good get as well.


Wouldn’t have bothered with Grimes, Barlow, Rosa, maric all just list fillers but didn’t cost much so wont mark as negative.


On the negative side don’t see any value on the Maric trade and probably wouldn’t have gotten rid of Josh Smith and I certainly wouldn’t have picked Sam Reid up given injury issus.


If I look at talent alone Adams, Varcoe and Crisp out but Talia, Hartlett, Greene and Jenkins in and the ins better than the outs by some margin.



National Draft – 8.5/10


Really well done. Hayward a good get at 24 and has a lot of scope. Cox is as skilled a player as ever see and at 33 a big win. Allison was about the mark and I am 50:50 on but he had a great bottom age year. Walker I havent been that keen on but McCarthy a real talent.



Rookie Draft – n/A




Best 22 View


Barlow wouldn’t be in it for mine. I would be bringing Wills in to play that role. I would also have Ramsay into the side for some speed in the back half and push Hartlett or Wells into the middle.

Knightmare:


Collingwood:
1. 10/10
2. Solid draft with Hayward and Walker (though undrafted) the two I like for value, the others ok enough without being my picks. The trading is what I like from Collingwood and what has set Collingwood apart in this game. Established players were added and the best 22 was enhanced with the tall core of Talia, Reid, Moore, Jenkins and Grundy much nicer than what Collingwood in reality have and a good balance across the best 22 also exists that doesn't in Collingwood's actual team. McVeigh down back for experience and skills, Hartlett for outside run and hurt factor and Greene up forward for another really good forward who can go through the midfield. What made Collingwood's trading great was that best 22 enhanced, list talent was upgraded but then it was all done in positions of relative list needed which makes it successful. Other than the Langdon, Fasolo and S.Reid trades Collingwood gained much more than it lost.
3. Keep going after players who improve the clubs best 22.


Final weighed score=9.5/10

 

[Prochard123]

Snoop:
Geelong


Trades – 5/10


Have to say was really unsure how to rate these.


On the positive side Bruest was a good win as was the deal involving Viney and Jack (Gray). How you got a pick 45 and a young player for Mackie is beyond me….another win. But…… I wouldn’t be trading my Brownlow medallist and I don’t think the deal was anywhere good enough. Seemed to be doing his ‘real’ club a favour there. I also wouldn’t have done the Cockatoo deal. He is a talent and you don’t trade those for old B graders in my view.



National Draft – 7/10


Now for the good news. Thought they traded well. Even though Macreadie went much later highly confident history will judge this about the right spot for him or possibly higher. Just didn’t adjust to city living. He is as country as these kids get. Gallucci a massive win at 28 and Walker that was a good get. Not to know (as I wasn’t til post champs) there were some injury issues clubs not sure on. Have no doubt he will make it through. Mutch a good get as well.



Rookie Draft – 5/10


Strandica I am 50:50 on to be honest. One trick pony. Goddard didn’t get taken bc was tough enough but the picks are fine.

Knightmare:

Geelong
1. 2/10
2. Not a draft I'm keen on. Mutch is the only selection I like on value, Gallucci maybe speculatively given attributes. Other selections aren't great. Trading away Dangerfield, J.Selwood, Blicavs and Guthrie is disastrous with compensation not sufficient. Trades for Jack Viney, Luke Breust and Robbie Gray excellent. Overall though net losses much greater than net gains.
3. Don't trade star power, trade for star power. Particularly with Geelong being in a good situation to contend in 2017.

Total weighed score=3.9/10