Recommitted Todd Goldstein

[ArjenTheGreat]

Like Maric, Minson and Jamar this year?

What the **** has Minson & Maric got to do with Goldstein?

Let me add to the list, assuming the buyer has no list deficiency.

-Fyfe up there
-Bontempelli my #1
-Hogan maybe to Freo
-Lynch yes.
-Dangerfield yes
-Sloane no
-Talia no
-Weitering no
-Cripps not even close
-Pendlebury no
-Moore lol
-Treloar lol
-Neale bigger lol
-Cameron maybe
-Shiel no
-Greene no
-Conigilio no
-Lobb maybe
-Gunston no
-Petracca no
-Brayshaw no
-Viney no
-Gawn up there
-Wines no
-Gray no
-Martin up there
-Rance up there
-Hannebury no
-Parker lol
-Rampe please
-Franklin up there
-Gaff lol
-Mcgovern lol
-Naitanui coming off ACL... NO
-Both Kennedys WCE one yes.
-Tom Boyd please
-Mills please
-Heeney coming.

Assuming no list deficiency....?

Hahahahaha

How can you determine a value without list deficiency?

 

[cdcanman]

My two cents, not that anyone asked...

Goldstein was clearly a top 5 player in the competition in 2015. He has likely fallen a little after having an ordinary year this season (by his own standards)owing mostly to a PCL injury. He was still the second best performing ruckman in the game in 2016 despite his injury, IMO.

As Sweet Jebus has pointed out, this does not necessarily equate to his trade value however. Where a player stands in the pecking order of best players in the game does not necessarily mirror their value at the trade table. Age is a major factor in this. Are you willing to offer the same assets for a guy who might give you 5 years service as you would for a guy who will likely give you 10? It's pretty simple really. For this reason alone there would be loads of younger guys with huge potential who will likely return more via trade than Goldstein would, many of them listed in previous posts.

I'm not saying it should be the case, just that it likely would be. It is in no way a reflection of Goldstein's ability or standing in the game, just a reflection of how talent seems to be evaluated in the trade market.
He is likely worth more to NM than he would return via trade

 

[ArjenTheGreat]

My two cents, not that anyone asked...

Goldstein was clearly a top 5 player in the competition in 2015. He has likely fallen a little after having an ordinary year this season (by his own standards)owing mostly to a PCL injury. He was still the second best performing ruckman in the game in 2016 despite his injury, IMO.

As Sweet Jebus has pointed out, this does not necessarily equate to his trade value however. Where a player stands in the pecking order of best players in the game does not necessarily mirror their value at the trade table. Age is a major factor in this. Are you willing to offer the same assets for a guy who might give you 5 years service as you would for a guy who will likely give you 10? It's pretty simple really. For this reason alone there would be loads of younger guys with huge potential who will likely return more via trade than Goldstein would, many of them listed in previous posts.

I'm not saying it should be the case, just that it likely would be. It is in no way a reflection of Goldstein's ability or standing in the game, just a reflection of how talent seems to be evaluated in the trade market.
He is likely worth more to NM than he would return via trade

Absolutely no doubt.

But there are other factors at play re: Goldy.

He eliminates the need to play a 2nd ruck and reduces the number of rotations used as he plays more minutes than any other ruckman.

On a strategic level, team flexibility is an important determining factor.

I personally think you can scratch any midfielder other than Danger.

I also think with modern team defences, that key forwards (except Buddy) aren't as valuable as they once were... Look at the dogs, they seem to go OK without anything remotely resembling a quality key forward.

Players like Darcy Moore who may be younger and perceived to have a higher value, can hardly get on the park now... Would a team give up heaps for a player who can barely get on the park at 20?

I think it's too simplistic to suggest a younger player with more years left in the game is worth more than someone who can give you 5-7 years of absolute top drawer football, especially if your club is entering or is indeed in a premiership window.

Anyway... It appears he won't be traded so we'll never get an answer either way, which is a shame.

But if Mumford gets a hold of Campbell on Saturday and it costs the doggies a GF spot, you can bet your last dollar that they will be looking at him big time and will in all likelihood be offering much closer to my evaluation than some of yours.

Happy to be proven wrong as always.

 

[Flawed Genius]

Goldy is worth what others are willing to pay.

For clubs without an established ruckman, that is a frigging shitload.

For example, Essendon (a half interested Leuenberger), the Dogs (Jordan Roughead and the saxophone-playing Saab-driving VFL retread) and Fremantle (the part of Sandilands not riddled with turf toe) would and should pay through the nose for an established ruckman with 8 years of development and two seasons in the top 5 players in the competition. He instantly improves the midfield of all of those sides and should the Dogs trade for him he makes that team a genuinely scary prospect and I have no doubt they'd be flag favourites the second the trade went through.

For those teams, their first picks are Essendon (#1), Fremantle (#3) & the Dogs (between #15 & #18). Should the Bombers trade #1 for Goldy? Would that be what it takes? Hell yes it would be. Imagine Goldstein rucking to Merrett, Heppell and Watson. The year off they've had will seem like a breeze if you're coming back to the first-picked ruck in the competition. Fremantle's #3 is probably committed elsewhere, but Goldstein to Fyfe doesn't sound like the start of a beautiful friendship? If the Dogs could scrounge up more picks, which they'd have to, Goldstein to the plethora of wheel and deal mids the Dogs have got? Instant flag favourites.

FWIW the players before this year - a far more important rating system than an arbitrary hidden algorithm used to rank players - ranked Goldy #12 in the league. Ahead of him were Roughead, Gray, Priddis, Selwood, Franklin, Mitchell, Hodge, Pendlebury, Dangerfield, Ablett & Fyfe.

 

[daffo]

He is worth pick 5-10.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

On June 30 2019, what will Goldstein's age be?

He'll be 30, about to turn 31.

What point do you think that makes?

Ie: the 3rd year of a new contract should he be traded in this trade period.

Do clubs only think three years ahead when assessing a player's trade value?

Is that another one of your magic rules? Along with using SuperCoach scores to determine trade value?

If you think that AGE is relevant in this discussion about Goldstein you're kidding yourself.

Age is relevant in any discussion about any player's trade value. It's absurd to suggest otherwise. But sure, it's all about his SuperCoach scores so his age is a non-factor.

Suggesting age is a a factor re: Goldstein is disingenuous.

See above. Age is a factor in any discussion about any player's trade value. That's not disingenuous. That's the most obvious thing in the world. And the fact you don't get it is an embarrassing air-swing on your part.

Was Dean Cox any good in 2011 or 2012?

Yes, he was still very handy. But I don't imagine for a second he would have been in the league's 5 most valuable players in terms of trade value at the end of 2010. The reality is that clubs will pay more for a gun midfielder or key forward with 10 years left than for a gun ruckman with 3 or 4 seasons left – if you want to use Cox as the example.

And that's the point of conjecture. It's not whether Goldstein still has some reasonable football left in him. He probably does. The issue is whether he is, as you argued, one of the 5 most valuable players in the league. For some reason, you think his age has no impact on that discussion. It's truly bizarre.

But sure, tell us more about the 'concept of value' and how it's all about SuperCoach scores.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Absolutely no doubt.

But there are other factors at play re: Goldy.

SuperCoach scores, for example.

Goldstein ranks very highly on SuperCoach so you can't just dismiss that when assessing trade value. Right?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Goldy is worth what others are willing to pay.

The point of conjecture is whether he's top 5 in the comp. That seems like a stretch.

For those teams, their first picks are Essendon (#1), Fremantle (#3) & the Dogs (between #15 & #18). Should the Bombers trade #1 for Goldy? Would that be what it takes? Hell yes it would be. Imagine Goldstein rucking to Merrett, Heppell and Watson. The year off they've had will seem like a breeze if you're coming back to the first-picked ruck in the competition.

No way in hell Essendon are trading pick 1 for a 28-year-old.

FWIW the players before this year - a far more important rating system than an arbitrary hidden algorithm used to rank players - ranked Goldy #12 in the league. Ahead of him were Roughead, Gray, Priddis, Selwood, Franklin, Mitchell, Hodge, Pendlebury, Dangerfield, Ablett & Fyfe.

Again, that doesn't really indicate trade value, does it?

Unless you think Priddis has higher trade value than every young player not on that list.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

I'm not sure some of you quite grasp the concept of value.

I'd happily take Stringer and their 1st.

We'd also need to chuck in Libba to make it happen

 

[Flawed Genius]

The point of conjecture is whether he's top 5 in the comp. That seems like a stretch.

He's a top 5 ruckman when injured. He's a top 1 ruckman when he's not. Clubs pay for that.

He's not in the market for all players. If you matched him against other ruckmen on the market - presuming he is on the market - then he commands the most value of anyone.

No way in hell Essendon are trading pick 1 for a 28-year-old.

That's what Essendon have got. If they go and trade that #1 for say, GC's 4 & 6, then I'd accept either both of those picks or one of those picks and a young player from their list. If Essendon want Goldstein, which they'd be stupid not to if he became available, then they'd have to make a deal work. Whether that's #1 or downgrading those picks & trading them for Goldy, that's what they've got to do.

Again, that doesn't really indicate trade value, does it?

Unless you think Priddis has higher trade value than every young player not on that list.

I didn't say anything about trade value. I just listed who the players ranked as the top 12 players in the competition before the year started.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

He's a top 5 ruckman when injured. He's a top 1 ruckman when he's not. Clubs pay for that.

He's not in the market for all players. If you matched him against other ruckmen on the market - presuming he is on the market - then he commands the most value of anyone.

That doesn't really address what's being argued.

That's what Essendon have got. If they go and trade that #1 for say, GC's 4 & 6, then I'd accept either both of those picks or one of those picks and a young player from their list. If Essendon want Goldstein, which they'd be stupid not to if he became available, then they'd have to make a deal work. Whether that's #1 or downgrading those picks & trading them for Goldy, that's what they've got to do.

I disagree. I don't think pick 1 would be on the table for a player of Goldstein's age.

I didn't say anything about trade value. I just listed who the players ranked as the top 12 players in the competition before the year started.

Sure. I'm just pointing out this list is not an indicator of trade value – and that's what we're talking about.

 

[cdcanman]

Absolutely no doubt.

But there are other factors at play re: Goldy.

He eliminates the need to play a 2nd ruck and reduces the number of rotations used as he plays more minutes than any other ruckman.

On a strategic level, team flexibility is an important determining factor.

None of this is news to anyone. Everyone is well aware of what Goldstein brings (plenty).
Not sure these factors determine anything, they merely contribute along with many others.

I personally think you can scratch any midfielder other than Danger.

I personally disagree with you. There would quite a number of mids who would likely return more via trade than Goldy would. Not saying they are better players at this stage, just that they likely return more.

I also think with modern team defences, that key forwards (except Buddy) aren't as valuable as they once were... Look at the dogs, they seem to go OK without anything remotely resembling a quality key forward.

Teams are still paying key forwards like they are worth a lot. Sure, there is more than one way to skin a cat, as WB and even hawthorn are proving, but that doesn't mean that KPF aren't still having a major impact on winning. Where would GC be without Lynch? Where would WC be without Kennedy? GWS without their talls? Good ones are still hugely valuable, still match winners. Their skill sets have changed quite a bit, but don't confuse that with their value being diminished.

Players like Darcy Moore who may be younger and perceived to have a higher value, can hardly get on the park now... Would a team give up heaps for a player who can barely get on the park at 20?

In Darcy Moore's case? Yes, plenty indeed

I think it's too simplistic to suggest a younger player with more years left in the game is worth more than someone who can give you 5-7 years of absolute top drawer football, especially if your club is entering or is indeed in a premiership window.

Not any younger player, just those that project to be stars in the future.
Take Brett Deledio as an example. He has achieved far more and is a far better player than Dion Prestia at this stage of their relative careers. Prestia is likely going to go to Richmond in exchange for pick 6, but there is not a team in the competition who would trade pick 6 for Brett Deledio. It's not a reflection of who the better player is, just of how teams evaluate relative worth in the trade market. Age is a major contributing factor. You are far more likely to give up valuable assets for someone of roughly equitable potential if they have 10 years plus remaining than on someone who has maybe 5.

But if Mumford gets a hold of Campbell on Saturday and it costs the doggies a GF spot, you can bet your last dollar that they will be looking at him big time and will in all likelihood be offering much closer to my evaluation than some of yours.

Pretty sure Mumford will be playing in Sydney on Friday night, not at Port Melbourne on Saturday afternoon


I love Goldy, he is a stud. Could well return to being a top 5 player in the AFL next year. I just can't agree with your assertion that his trade value would be top 5 of all players in the game. I think that is unlikely

 

[ArjenTheGreat]

He'll be 30, about to turn 31.

What point do you think that makes?

Do clubs only think three years ahead when assessing a player's trade value?

Is that another one of your magic rules? Along with using SuperCoach scores to determine trade value?

Age is relevant in any discussion about any player's trade value. It's absurd to suggest otherwise. But sure, it's all about his SuperCoach scores so his age is a non-factor.

See above. Age is a factor in any discussion about any player's trade value. That's not disingenuous. That's the most obvious thing in the world. And the fact you don't get it is an embarrassing air-swing on your part.

Yes, he was still very handy. But I don't imagine for a second he would have been in the league's 5 most valuable players in terms of trade value at the end of 2010. The reality is that clubs will pay more for a gun midfielder or key forward with 10 years left than for a gun ruckman with 3 or 4 seasons left – if you want to use Cox as the example.

And that's the point of conjecture. It's not whether Goldstein still has some reasonable football left in him. He probably does. The issue is whether he is, as you argued, one of the 5 most valuable players in the league. For some reason, you think his age has no impact on that discussion. It's truly bizarre.

But sure, tell us more about the 'concept of value' and how it's all about SuperCoach scores.

Who cares how good someone is going to be in 5 years time?

I'm not saying he will be in the top 5 most valuable players the game in 5 years time.

You bizarrely disregard the fact that teams can trade for the now, for next next 3 years.

You keep bringing up supercoach scores, because you have nothing left... I merely used that as another independent data source to add weight to my argument that he is a top 5 player in the game and then from that point of strength argued how someone who is a top 5 player may very well be in the most 5 valuable.

I looked for any independent data to assist my argument.

I also listed a top 10 most valuable earlier in the thread that once again you bizarrely leave out in favour of going the supercoach route.

And I refer back to my original post that you don't understand VALUE.

Players aren't always a ****ing futures contract, there are some clubs who want to win NOW.

Were Sydney thinking about Buddy at age 34-36 when they signed him for 10 years 3 years ago?

What about Hawthorn when they gave up two 1st rounders for Burgoyne at 28 on crutches and bone on bone???

This obsession with 5-10 year into the future outcomes of yours is borderline ridiculous given the rest of your arguments are well made.

We'd also need to chuck in Libba to make it happen

The point being that you get Crameri back next year anyway so won't be much of a loss

 

[ArjenTheGreat]

In Darcy Moore's case? Yes, plenty indeed

My point is that Darcy Moore is worth more to Collingwood and others than he is to us... He has zero value to us.

We have Goldstein, Brown, Waite, Daw, Wood, Durdin and McKay - to us he is worth absolutely nothing and wouldn't get a game.

To Collingwood he is the future HOF superstar.

As to Goldy, to a team without a ruckman on the verge of success, ala Dogs, Swans, Gold Coast potentially, you can make a case that at 28 years and 3 months old, the age factor isn't relevant at all.

He is still going to be playing good football in 5+ years time, possibly still great football.

 

[Bulldog1954]

What the **** has Minson & Maric got to do with Goldstein

I quoted your ridiculous post of "ruckman play their best footy post 30" then gave examples of it often not being the case. Pretty ******* obvious.

 

[cdcanman]

My point is that Darcy Moore is worth more to Collingwood and others than he is to us... He has zero value to us.

We have Goldstein, Brown, Waite, Daw, Wood, Durdin and McKay - to us he is worth absolutely nothing and wouldn't get a game.

Firstly, OMG!!! I can't help you here.

As to Goldy, to a team without a ruckman on the verge of success, ala Dogs, Swans, Gold Coast potentially, you can make a case that at 28 years and 3 months old, the age factor isn't relevant at all.

Age may not be relative in terms of their level interest in bringing Goldstein to their club, but it likely would remain very relevant in terms of what they are willing to offer via trade, which is what is being discussed here. Again, his value as a footballer and his value at the trade table are not necessarily the same thing.
Oh, and Swans have Tippett, Sinclair, Naismith and Nankervis. Think they are doing ok. Suns have just re-signed Nichols and are a long way off success, too long for Goldstein to be relevant to them.

He is still going to be playing good football in 5+ years time, possibly still great football.

He also might not be playing good football in 5 years time. None of us are Nostradamus unless I am mistaken

 

[peppy la pew]

My point is that Darcy Moore is worth more to Collingwood and others than he is to us... He has zero value to us.

We have Goldstein, Brown, Waite, Daw, Wood, Durdin and McKay - to us he is worth absolutely nothing and wouldn't get a game.

To Collingwood he is the future HOF superstar.

As to Goldy, to a team without a ruckman on the verge of success, ala Dogs, Swans, Gold Coast potentially, you can make a case that at 28 years and 3 months old, the age factor isn't relevant at all.

He is still going to be playing good football in 5+ years time, possibly still great football.

You rate Darcy Moore as zero, then throw up Waite and Daw as better players

Consider yourself laughed out of this thread

 

[adammania9]

I quoted your ridiculous post of "ruckman play their best footy post 30" then gave examples of it often not being the case. Pretty ******* obvious.

Bigfooty Rule #1 - any examples of things that act in the opposite direction of what is being debated are irrelevant and have nothing to do with the conversation.

 

[54dreamsalive]

Goldy is worth what others are willing to pay.

For clubs without an established ruckman, that is a frigging shitload.

For example, Essendon (a half interested Leuenberger), the Dogs (Jordan Roughead and the saxophone-playing Saab-driving VFL retread) and Fremantle (the part of Sandilands not riddled with turf toe) would and should pay through the nose for an established ruckman with 8 years of development and two seasons in the top 5 players in the competition. He instantly improves the midfield of all of those sides and should the Dogs trade for him he makes that team a genuinely scary prospect and I have no doubt they'd be flag favourites the second the trade went through.

For those teams, their first picks are Essendon (#1), Fremantle (#3) & the Dogs (between #15 & #18). Should the Bombers trade #1 for Goldy? Would that be what it takes? Hell yes it would be. Imagine Goldstein rucking to Merrett, Heppell and Watson. The year off they've had will seem like a breeze if you're coming back to the first-picked ruck in the competition. Fremantle's #3 is probably committed elsewhere, but Goldstein to Fyfe doesn't sound like the start of a beautiful friendship? If the Dogs could scrounge up more picks, which they'd have to, Goldstein to the plethora of wheel and deal mids the Dogs have got? Instant flag favourites.

FWIW the players before this year - a far more important rating system than an arbitrary hidden algorithm used to rank players - ranked Goldy #12 in the league. Ahead of him were Roughead, Gray, Priddis, Selwood, Franklin, Mitchell, Hodge, Pendlebury, Dangerfield, Ablett & Fyfe.

Very well said...

The Dogs will offer pick 15-18 and Hrovat for Goldy.
Hrovat already had physical.

North might even take Minson as coverage.

North are hell bent on getting 4 picks in the top 30 this year.

 

[ArjenTheGreat]

You rate Darcy Moore as zero, then throw up Waite and Daw as better players

Consider yourself laughed out of this thread

LOL he isn't better than Waite. Probably will be from 2018 onwards, possibly 2017. That is if Moore can stop getting himself injured.

At the rate he gets injured his value can't be anywhere near his potential.

In any case, that's not what I said and you know it, if you're too much of a simpleton to understand the difference, then don't post.

He has zero value to us in that he is only a major, allbeit omni injured, upgrade on our existing reserve players, not our starting tall forwards.

And therein lies the difference.

If you think that clubs are going to overpay on potential ala Tom Boyd than you have rocks in your head. That shit truck of a trade has put the trade value of potential stars back decades as why bother selling the farm for potential when you can have bona fide stars for the same price.

Trading on long term potential is done.

Thank Tom Boyd and Liam Pickering.

Very well said...

The Dogs will offer pick 15-18 and Hrovat for Goldy.
Hrovat already had physical.

North might even take Minson as coverage.

North are hell bent on getting 4 picks in the top 30 this year.

And we'd politely tell you to stick that up your ass, with good reason.

Even your 2016 and 2017 1sts would be unders.

 

[ArjenTheGreat]

Firstly, OMG!!! I can't help you here.

Mate your prior post was on the money...

But you have to understand where each team is at.

We have used first round draft picks on McKay and Durdin in the last 2 years.
In addition to already having Brown and Daw... How many forward/rucks does one team need.

Trading another 1 or 2 1st rounders for Moore would be an absolute waste and as such he has no value to us...sure other teams would have a crack, of course, I like the kid, nice mark and set shot. But is he much better than Brown? No. Wood? No... Is he a better back up ruckman than Daw? No...

You can OMG all you want, but that is our situation, as much potential as the kid has, he's worth squat to us.

I quoted your ridiculous post of "ruckman play their best footy post 30" then gave examples of it often not being the case. Pretty ******* obvious.

No... I said the best ruckmen, not frauds.

I also said that the athletic ones were the exception... Corey McKernan/Nic Nat types.

You've had Darcy, Minson and Wynd all finish up early, so that is your experience with Ruckman, I get that...

 

[Prochard123]

Absolutely no doubt.

But there are other factors at play re: Goldy.

He eliminates the need to play a 2nd ruck and reduces the number of rotations used as he plays more minutes than any other ruckman.

On a strategic level, team flexibility is an important determining factor.

I personally think you can scratch any midfielder other than Danger.

I also think with modern team defences, that key forwards (except Buddy) aren't as valuable as they once were... Look at the dogs, they seem to go OK without anything remotely resembling a quality key forward.

Players like Darcy Moore who may be younger and perceived to have a higher value, can hardly get on the park now... Would a team give up heaps for a player who can barely get on the park at 20?

I think it's too simplistic to suggest a younger player with more years left in the game is worth more than someone who can give you 5-7 years of absolute top drawer football, especially if your club is entering or is indeed in a premiership window.

Anyway... It appears he won't be traded so we'll never get an answer either way, which is a shame.

But if Mumford gets a hold of Campbell on Saturday and it costs the doggies a GF spot, you can bet your last dollar that they will be looking at him big time and will in all likelihood be offering much closer to my evaluation than some of yours.

Happy to be proven wrong as always.

It's like a mother defending her little boy.

 

[bombreys]

My point is that Darcy Moore is worth more to Collingwood and others than he is to us... He has zero value to us.

We have Goldstein, Brown, Waite, Daw, Wood, Durdin and McKay - to us he is worth absolutely nothing and wouldn't get a game.

To Collingwood he is the future HOF superstar.

As to Goldy, to a team without a ruckman on the verge of success, ala Dogs, Swans, Gold Coast potentially, you can make a case that at 28 years and 3 months old, the age factor isn't relevant at all.

He is still going to be playing good football in 5+ years time, possibly still great football.

As an Essendon fan, bias comes naturally to me.

But did you really just suggest Darcy Moore wouldn't get a game for North and then list Durdin and McKay as two of the reasons why?

That's like me saying we have Luenberger and Shaun McKernan so Goldy wouldn't get a game for us.

As for Goldy, I think he's worth an early first rounder and possibly a player, or maybe two late first rounders.

 

[cdcanman]

Mate your prior post was on the money...

But you have to understand where each team is at.

We have used first round draft picks on McKay and Durdin in the last 2 years.
In addition to already having Brown and Daw... How many forward/rucks does one team need.

Trading another 1 or 2 1st rounders for Moore would be an absolute waste and as such he has no value to us...sure other teams would have a crack, of course, I like the kid, nice mark and set shot. But is he much better than Brown? No. Wood? No... Is he a better back up ruckman than Daw? No...

You can OMG all you want, but that is our situation, as much potential as the kid has, he's worth squat to us.

Ah yes, the Portland Trailblazers theory of recruiting. 'We are not going to take Michael Jordan in the draft because we already have a shooting guard on the roster'. Makes total sense. Good luck with that, it worked out really well for them.
Time to put the blue and white glasses down. Moore projects to be better than all of those guys you mentioned. Smart recruiters wouldn't pass up the opportunity to sign a star level talent because they have good, solid role players or young, unproven kids on the roster already, no matter where they were drafted. You take the star and sort out the redundancy later. It's like saying Hawthorn wouldn't take Marcus Bontempelli because they already have Liam Shiels, Jono O'Rourke and Kieran Lovell. Makes no sense.
Moore walks into NM's best 18. He isn't going to be a fwd/ruck going forward. He'll be a fulltime KPF as soon as next year. Collingwood have used him in the ruck (very sparingly) based on need, not on preference.

 

[ArjenTheGreat]

Ah yes, the Portland Trailblazers theory of recruiting. 'We are not going to take Michael Jordan in the draft because we already have a shooting guard on the roster'. Makes total sense. Good luck with that, it worked out really well for them.
Time to put the blue and white glasses down. Moore projects to be better than all of those guys you mentioned. Smart recruiters wouldn't pass up the opportunity to sign a star level talent because they have good, solid role players or young, unproven kids on the roster already, no matter where they were drafted. You take the star and sort out the redundancy later. It's like saying Hawthorn wouldn't take Marcus Bontempelli because they already have Liam Shiels, Jono O'Rourke and Kieran Lovell. Makes no sense.
Moore walks into NM's best 18. He isn't going to be a fwd/ruck going forward. He'll be a fulltime KPF as soon as next year. Collingwood have used him in the ruck (very sparingly) based on need, not on preference.

I dont think he projects to better than Brown or Wood.

I don't care what anyone else says either, he projects to be a omni injured crock.

He actually projects to never have an AFL capable body.

That is his current projection.