List Mgmt. Trade and F/A 2020 Cont’d

[tranquilli lace]

What if, and hear me out here, we aren’t planning on taking Reef?

I think we have to be open to that possibility. I reckon we might be trying to jag two KPP with those two picks.

 

[TradeDraft]

What if, and hear me out here, we aren’t planning on taking Reef?

I think we have to be open to that possibility. I reckon we might be trying to jag two KPP with those two picks.

If we move up in Draft there is a Real Possibility we will pass on Reef

 

[Jen2310]

What if, and hear me out here, we aren’t planning on taking Reef?

I think we have to be open to that possibility. I reckon we might be trying to jag two KPP with those two picks.

nah, we'll draft him. That much i'm sure of.

 

[Soups]

1 good thing about the sh*t Trade Period there be Change at Collingwood that is Badly Needed

Will there be?

 

[partypie]

also next year free agency party time

There's got to be some question around whether any notable free agents would even consider us next year, given our likely lack of success and what has transpired this year with Treloar, Phillips and Stevo. Any "godfather" type deal would have to be off the table and even moderately lucrative offers over 4 or 5 years would have to be viewed with a degree of scepticism, especially in terms of any juggling of contract numbers from year to year, and even more with any back-ending of salary.

To be honest after the Treloar debacle I suspect the strategy of getting players across on back-ended (and maybe even incentive-laden) deals is pretty much off the table for us now, as *nobody* is going to accept a long term contract on those terms given how we've shown ineptitude in both managing our TPP overall and in relation to our willingness to back out of long term deals, if we feel it is "necessary".

It's easy to forget but in the end players don't just chase the dollars, they also by and large strive for a degree of stability with a club they want to play for in their football career, so when they sign a deal for 3, 4 or 5+ years they would reasonably expect to be at that club for the duration of their deal.

It's going to he challenging for us (and I'm being polite there) to lure any quality free agents in the shorter term, while the current list management and coaching group is in place.

 

[omen_au]

You’ve made your point great but looking at it the wrong way.

sides and Pendles will drop in money

hit draft this year we rate it

Daicos next year

also next year free agency party time

Problem is with the turmoil within the club and how it’s being run we won’t be a destination club without over paying and then we will be in the same position we found ourselves in this year


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Professor Knowall]

I come in peace. ... Would collingwood fans do pick 11 for your pick 14 and 16? ...

NO - Collingwood fans would never be that stupid ... but as for Ned Guy and the Collingwood hierarchy we're presently stuck with - who knows? I'm no longer underestimating their stupidity.

 

[Apex36]

He's also carrying our two additional first round draft picks if we throw the house at pick 2. That is a super high price to be paying for one draftee.

The narrative around "well we have Reef and Daicos coming in anyway so draft picks don't matter" needs to be left at the door - we're already getting them without needing to use any of our three first round picks, so the question is what else can we do with those picks to set us up for another run at being a contender in the post Pendlebury / Sidebottom / Howe era?

Given the volume of high level talent we have already missed out on (and I include players like Langers and even Beams in that category), lost from the club, or will lose in the next 1-3 years we really need quantity as much as we need quality coming through the ranks.

We might not be in mini-rebuild mode at the moment, but make no mistake it is coming and we need those quality kids coming through or we'll be in a much deeper hole a few years down the track.

For mine, it’s 3 first round draftees plus Daicos and Reef vs 1 draftee (McDonald) plus Daicos and Reef. Either way I think would be a good outcome.

 

[partypie]

I come in peace.
I think you're seriously underrating the north list. In 2021 we'll most likely have the best group of under 23 kids in the league.
There's no way the club would do a trade for pick 2; maybe a 3-1 or 4-1 with Essendon for their firsts but that's it.
Will be huge for the club to take the 2nd best kid in the league this year.
Would collingwood fans do pick 11 for your pick 14 and 16?
This year you only have to take 1 kid from the draft so there's some incentive there to go up the draft board if sizes and salary are an issue.

Coming back to pick over the carcass for whatever morsels might be left?

I know we've done your club a massive favour by forcibly dragging the spotlight away from the shambolic period your club went through recently and firmly over onto our equally incompetent management, but you've already taken your pound of flesh so the answer to your question would be a hard "no".

 

[partypie]

What if, and hear me out here, we aren’t planning on taking Reef?

I think we have to be open to that possibility. I reckon we might be trying to jag two KPP with those two picks.

Try to keep up - our plan (or rather hope) is to draft one or two kids *and* pick up Reef with a bid match this year.

 

[manicpie]

For mine, it’s 3 first round draftees plus Daicos and Reef vs 1 draftee (McDonald) plus Daicos and Reef. Either way I think would be a good outcome.

How are you getting McDonald

 

[Apex36]

How are you getting McDonald

Go back and read my last posts

 

[Hardas]

I’m still in shock - Did we seriously give up 26, 33, 42 in Treloar trade?

That's what's been doing my head in too... sigh...

 

[regpies]

See....the real question that any journalist (who can call themselves a journalist) should have asked is--'Adam did you follow up that conversation with any of your teammates to categorically confirm any truth to it?

That question never happened and subsequently any validation for accuracy has now not been confirmed and paints Nathan and the club in a negative light.

Adam when asked about the conversation taking place around the teammates wanting him gone replied with " I don't think it's true".

All Adam had to do--was ring his teammates and find out for himself.
There's an old expression whereby people don't want to ask questions that they don't want to know the real answer too--because of how painful it may be to hear.

If he rings a team mate as if they’ll say to him yeah I wanted you gone.

It would’ve been the leadership group or senior players like Pendles, Howe, Sidebottom and Adams who would’ve told Buckley they don’t want Treloar/Stevo around. The stories saying players don’t want Treloar made it seem like the whole list didn’t want him.

 

[Silky23]

Why the hell would we not get Reef.

He’s a 193cm inside MID with elite speed. Has the ability to burst from a stoppage. Super agile. Athletic.

If we overlooked him I think there’d be riots at Collingwood. A big one.
Him Adams and the Daicos bros are the four to build a midfield around.

 

[Hardas]

Great, now people think we all have the IQ of Ned Guy

Thanks...that made me laugh out loud.

 

[stormskye]

That's what's been doing my head in too... sigh...

It pretty much ends up like this:
Dogs in: UGLE, treloar
Pies: pick 14

But it’s just a media beat up

 

[Jen2310]

Why the hell would we not get Reef.

He’s a 193cm inside MID with elite speed. Has the ability to burst from a stoppage. Super agile. Athletic.

If we overlooked him I think there’d be riots at Collingwood. A big one.
Him Adams and the Daicos bros are the four to build a midfield around.

Lets not also forget, he can play back, and forward. He is versatile, you can play him anywhere you want. That kind of options for a player -- lets be honest, not every player have these qualities; will be too hard to pass up.

 

[regpies]

I’m still in shock - Did we seriously give up 26, 33, 42 in Treloar trade?

I don’t understand why all 3 of those picks were involved. We give up a mid and a low 2nd along with a high 3rd to get a 1st and what will be a low 2nd back. So one of the 2nd rd picks is coming back and equal each other out.

We gave Treloar, 26 and 42 for pick 14, plus pay part of his salary. Those picks we gave are worth 600pts more than what 14 is worth. 26 and 33 are worth nearly 300 points more than 14. No reason at all for 42 to be included.

Unbelievable. In total we gave them Treloar and 600pts for nothing.

Giving Treloar and 26 for 14 is basically trading Treloar for going up only 8 spots in the draft, plus handing over 42. The stupidity is incredible

 

[Crazy Tails]

That's what's been doing my head in too... sigh...

It appears that it was the only way we could get the Dogs to give up pick 14 to get another 1st rounder in this year. Those 3 picks give them more points than 14 to match an early Reef bid.

So in essence we have used those picks to buy pick 14. Which means we’ve pretty much flicked Treloar for a future 2nd! Crazy.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Jen2310]

I don’t understand why all 3 of those picks were involved. We give up a mid and a low 2nd along with a high 3rd to get a 1st and what will be a low 2nd back. So one of the 2nd rd picks is coming back and equal each other out.

We gave Treloar, 26 and 42 for pick 14, plus pay part of his salary. Those picks we gave are worth 600pts more than what 14 is worth.

Unbelievable. Giving Treloar and 26 for 14 is basically trading Treloar for going up only 8 spots in the draft, plus handing over 42. The stupidity is incredible

should have only been Treloar and maybe 42, given we were paying part of his salary. And they didn't need #14 anyway

 

[partypie]

So in essence we have used those picks to buy pick 14. Which means we’ve pretty much flicked Treloar for a future 2nd! Crazy.

... which in turn was pretty much negated by the 562 DVI point deficit from the ensuing pick swaps, and in doing so heavily compromised our ability to match a bid on Reef if it comes where we hope it might (ie. after pick 15 as per current draft order).

If you're interested in the actual math then we essentially traded Treloar out for the equivalent of a pick in the early 60's, when you view the overall trade in terms of DVI point values.

 

[Silky23]

I don’t understand why all 3 of those picks were involved. We give up a mid and a low 2nd along with a high 3rd to get a 1st and what will be a low 2nd back. So one of the 2nd rd picks is coming back and equal each other out.

We gave Treloar, 26 and 42 for pick 14, plus pay part of his salary. Those picks we gave are worth 600pts more than what 14 is worth.

Unbelievable. Giving Treloar and 26 for 14 is basically trading Treloar for going up only 8 spots in the draft, plus handing over 42. The stupidity is incredible

Ultimately it did three things.
It sold Treloar to the Dogs because nobody else was buying his contract. Collingwood at that stage thought both relationship and the $$ was unsalvageable.
It gave the Dogs more points to match an early bid on JUH so helps them massively.
And ultimately we got a pick early enough in the draft that Reef will most likely not be bid so we can use that pick on another guy plus still be able to get Reef.
That’s why they did it.

 

[stormskye]

All the draftees thinking of being taken with our pick 14 and the pressure it brings:

 

[regpies]

should have only been Treloar and maybe 42, given we were paying part of his salary. And they didn't need #14 anyway

We want a 2nd next year to help for Daicos points so I’m fine with that part of the trade. Which should’ve been Treloar, 33 and 42 for 14 and future 2nd.

Adding 26 means you’re adding the Stevo and Atu pick

It was actually

Loss - Treloar, Stevo, Atu, 26, 33, 42
Gain - 14 and future 2nd (likely 30-36)

33 and future 2nd are the same and equal each other out.

So it gets worse once you take that out

Loss - Treloar, Stevo, Atu, 33 and 42

Gain - 14