Who knows Meima? Interesting to see if Lloyd can pull these trades off, and still get a couple of good drafts.
List Mgmt. The Official Cam McCarthy Superultramega Thread - Deal done!
- Thread starter PurpleGreenRed
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Ain't that the truth.
Anything around there we should grab with both maulers IMHO.
But it's exciting!!!
Trade week used to be my favourite week on the footy calendar when we were looking for our saviour. Thankfully the club have moved past that but as an avid punter I still love trade week.
- Jan 14, 2008
- 14,827
- 31,828
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Giving GWS pick 3 is a huge bonus. If we didn't get back 7,15 and Cam then send a future 2nd pick to GWS for Cam and keep 3 . Posters are forgetting the value of pick 3. 15 other clubs would kill for it. 3 for just 7 and Cam is big kick in the arse to Freo.
- Sep 27, 2013
- 3,307
- 5,367
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Philadelpia 76'ers
Yes, he will come to us this year....he has publicly stated he wants to come to Freo, unlike Kersten or Hamling yet, he had done the medical with us, Clarko has said goodbye to him at the Hawks B&F
- Jun 5, 2015
- 13,172
- 8,797
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
I dont expect much , freo trade record is not very good so far . Hopefully some kids drop to freo like balic in draft.
- Jan 14, 2008
- 14,827
- 31,828
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
How about 16 for maybe Battle or Logue and let Hill wait until next trade ?
- Jun 5, 2015
- 13,172
- 8,797
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Wont happen , i am not happy but b.hill deal look like a done deal. The reason i like to get some good kids in the draft because they might get freo resell value , d.pearce, suban , ibbo, sandi , johnson ,mundy all wont had resell value .
- Sep 27, 2013
- 3,307
- 5,367
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Philadelpia 76'ers
Ca
Can't judge pick 7 until we see who we get so a bit premature, 7 could be just as good if not better than pick 3 depending on how good our talent identification and development is.
No. Hill will be good for us. There are some good Hawthorn posters (I know, right?) that value his relentless running and precise disposal.
- Jun 5, 2015
- 13,172
- 8,797
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
I am not totally against b.hill deal , but if you look outside best 22 , freo got nearly nobody got resell value suban,ibbo,ballas ,d.pearce , spurr,mundy. Freo already learn the hard way with gu,deboer and c.pearce .
- Jan 14, 2008
- 14,827
- 31,828
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
3 and future 2nd for 7,16 and Cam . Mayne compo for Hill. 7 and 16 for two top 20 youngsters . So could be Cam,Hill, SPS if he slides and Battle/ Logue.
Kersten for our third. Easy as , hand over the reins Lloyd I've got you covered.
Kersten for our third. Easy as , hand over the reins Lloyd I've got you covered.
- Jun 5, 2015
- 13,172
- 8,797
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Salim set , you go and do the deal.3 and future 2nd for 7,16 and Cam . Mayne compo for Hill. 7 and 16 for two top 20 youngsters . So could be Cam,Hill, SPS if he slides and Battle/ Logue.
Kersten for our third. Easy as , hand over the reins Lloyd I've got you covered.
- Jan 14, 2008
- 14,827
- 31,828
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- May 15, 2006
- 19,595
- 19,977
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- The Cobblers who do the Cobbling
I'm sure I read somewhere that Kersten was over here getting a medical
Shadow Man
Premiership Player
Not trying to be pessimistic but still have real concerns we may end up with buyers remorse in regard to Cam in 12 months time.
theridge
Debutant
- Dec 24, 2014
- 114
- 95
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
At least he would of come cheap. Hopefully anyway.
Anyone that just decides the sit out a whole year of footy like he did worries me a lot, definitely don't want to pay much at all. Sure potential high reward but he's a big risk imo.
- Jun 5, 2015
- 13,172
- 8,797
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
No risk no rewards.
I think the best way to value what pick #3 is worth is to take Cam out of the equation for a second. Then our pick #3 should be valued at what GWS is willing to pay for it (what it is worth to them). There is no way we should trade pick #3 for the exact same equivalent points value from a bunch of other picks. It is far more valuable to them because of their academy (ie getting a gun prior to bids on their players). And it is also a massive loss for us as we don't get access to one of the top 3 guns of the draft. When you sell a house you don't just sell it at cost value, you sell it at the highest price possible - that's how we should treat pick #3 and be willing to walk away if it isn't in our favour considerably.
I'm not exactly sure what the magic formula should be but without Cam involved it could be something like x (some multiplier - eg between 1.5 & 2) times the points worth from a combination of other picks including one very high pick. Then if we look at the price of Cam, which should be relatively high because we need a KPF, but then brought back down because they need to free cap space, he can't sit out another year, he is far less valuable because he did sit out a whole year and so on.
If Cam is worth say a second rounder then we should be seeking picks on top of him back from GWS worth pick #3 points * x - 2nd rounder points (Cam).
If we aren't going to win the trade heavily then why use pick #3 in the trade? We may as well find a second rounder (eg future one) and just pay with that. Cam is just the steak knives in a pick #3 trade - it does not make him have negative value like some are claiming here. I'd think getting pick #5 back would ensure we still get a top line player, pick #7 we'd likely miss out on them all. If we want more picks shouldn't we also be looking at a similar trade with GCS involving pick #6 instead? I'd still keep pick #3 but I'd also be willing to trade far more players and even future picks to add picks for this draft.
I'm not exactly sure what the magic formula should be but without Cam involved it could be something like x (some multiplier - eg between 1.5 & 2) times the points worth from a combination of other picks including one very high pick. Then if we look at the price of Cam, which should be relatively high because we need a KPF, but then brought back down because they need to free cap space, he can't sit out another year, he is far less valuable because he did sit out a whole year and so on.
If Cam is worth say a second rounder then we should be seeking picks on top of him back from GWS worth pick #3 points * x - 2nd rounder points (Cam).
If we aren't going to win the trade heavily then why use pick #3 in the trade? We may as well find a second rounder (eg future one) and just pay with that. Cam is just the steak knives in a pick #3 trade - it does not make him have negative value like some are claiming here. I'd think getting pick #5 back would ensure we still get a top line player, pick #7 we'd likely miss out on them all. If we want more picks shouldn't we also be looking at a similar trade with GCS involving pick #6 instead? I'd still keep pick #3 but I'd also be willing to trade far more players and even future picks to add picks for this draft.
I was dead-set against trading pick three, but after seeing the all-stars game and combine I've softened my stance a little bit.
Three is still our best pick in years, but personally I can think of seven players I would love us to draft, and I'm having real trouble deciding which is best.
McCluggage and McGrath seem to be favourites for pick one, I assume whichever one isn't picked first will probably go next.
There's little separating the next four in my mind, with each being brilliant prospects in their own rignt (tarranto, ainsworth, SPS, brodie)
If giving up pick 3 for seven will guarantee Cam comes our way, and there's no substantive difference between four to seven, then it's not such a big deal giving up pick three. Whether its one of those four or someone else entirely, we'll get a fantastic player regardless (though granted there's far less go home factor with sps)
Three is still our best pick in years, but personally I can think of seven players I would love us to draft, and I'm having real trouble deciding which is best.
McCluggage and McGrath seem to be favourites for pick one, I assume whichever one isn't picked first will probably go next.
There's little separating the next four in my mind, with each being brilliant prospects in their own rignt (tarranto, ainsworth, SPS, brodie)
If giving up pick 3 for seven will guarantee Cam comes our way, and there's no substantive difference between four to seven, then it's not such a big deal giving up pick three. Whether its one of those four or someone else entirely, we'll get a fantastic player regardless (though granted there's far less go home factor with sps)
wTG, a longer term perspective is needed. Yes, GWS are vulnerable, they were grossly unprofessional last year with Cam and yes we could make them pay till they bleed from multiple orifices. But their list is bursting with both talented players, high draft picks and there are some very talented academy players waiting in the wings. Over the next few seasons as they continue to develop there will be players amongst them seeking greater opportunities and higher pay packets - Steel is a good example. There will be others still seeking to return to their home states.
Consistently paying fair value and maintaining a reasonable approach to negotiations will enhance not only our chances of securing some of these future GWS prospects but also help in developing our bona fides amongst all other clubs akin to what Geelong currently enjoys.
Going backwards:
#3: Mills | Brayshaw | Billings | Plowman | Tyson | Day | Martin | Hill | Masten | Hansen | Ellis | Griffen | Sylvia | Brennan | Judd
#7: Hopper | Ahern | Aish | Wines | Haynes | Caddy | Sheppard | Rich | Palmer | Selwood | Ryder | Lewis | Tenace | Mackie | Hale
Pretty uninspiring stuff overall. Pick 3 is not the guaranteed star that some are assuming, and about a 50% chance of completely blowing the selection. Same with #7 or the top 10 in general. I reckon you could throw darts at a big board of the best prospects and do just as good a job as any recruiter on draft day.
It's not going to be predictable who ends up the best out of that #3 to #7 range. So I don't think there's any point losing sleep over downgrading, as we really have no idea whether it's the right thing to do or not.
#3: Mills | Brayshaw | Billings | Plowman | Tyson | Day | Martin | Hill | Masten | Hansen | Ellis | Griffen | Sylvia | Brennan | Judd
#7: Hopper | Ahern | Aish | Wines | Haynes | Caddy | Sheppard | Rich | Palmer | Selwood | Ryder | Lewis | Tenace | Mackie | Hale
Pretty uninspiring stuff overall. Pick 3 is not the guaranteed star that some are assuming, and about a 50% chance of completely blowing the selection. Same with #7 or the top 10 in general. I reckon you could throw darts at a big board of the best prospects and do just as good a job as any recruiter on draft day.
It's not going to be predictable who ends up the best out of that #3 to #7 range. So I don't think there's any point losing sleep over downgrading, as we really have no idea whether it's the right thing to do or not.
I don't think what I outlined was unreasonable and was far from trying to screw GWS. Go back and look at their (ie GWS's or any of the academy clubs for that matter) trades over the past few years where they traded multiple picks (because they just needed points) in return for other clubs moving up the order. Every single one of them you will find they took a very nice profit (even when there wasn't a top pick and they get a massive discount on points on top as well). As I and countless others have explained the premium with a very early pick is that they can grab a player earlier - only the academy clubs get that benefit. When people buy a house if they see something they really want it means they are willing to pay more. It's not the seller being unreasonable to look for the best price. If you were being unreasonable you would set the price above what the buyer values the house at and forcing them to find more currency
Also unreasonable, is only trading a player (eg Cam) if the destination club made their highest pick (eg #3) as part of the trade, as a club should be able to use a pick that equates to a player's precise value and not be forced to use a higher pick because the source club really wants it. This is all about good commerce, and not about screwing over those entitled bastards. Like I said in my previous post, we should be investigating what we can do with GCS instead if we are willing to trade down pick #3.- Status
