List Mgmt. Trade and F/A 2020 Cont’d

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
swoop42 said:
Penny dropped or just the nightclubs still shut?

Only time will tell.
Click to expand...
I think that he’s come to the realisation that he’s not going to ever become that big $$ player he assumed he was already unless he actually puts in the work. The embarrassment of shopping himself around and having no takers was probably the wake up call he needed.
 
Carringbush2010 said:
And yet even in this current environment, the premiers are the premiers and we are.......... well..................... sh*t.

I guess my point was, it does look like the players (employees) are invested in the club (employer) and the clubs success first and foremost. While at the Holden centre it looks like 'player X is on $$ I wan't the same or I'm calling Paddy' .

That's probably a simplistic observation but it does have that smell to it, which means the club will never succeed, not until the right attitude is employed collectively.

It's not looking good in the immediate term, given that the club has basically conceded (alluded to) that the window is shut. That is heavily exacerbated by the fact we've got zero to show since the acquisition of Nathan into his role. :(
Click to expand...
I understand your reasoning and agree with some of your thoughts but believe you are being a bit simplistic in some cases.
Only misfortune ensured we missed out on a flag 2 years ago that's not zero.
Again we fell just short of another GF last year - again not zero.
Finally this year we won one of the greatest finals games in recent history under extreme pressure - definitely not zero.
Everything has to fall into place for a club to win a flag in any given year and it simply didn't happen for us.

Now in general - the Beams signing - which I am on record for opposing due to his attitude/s - is at the core of this. Every club will do anything to hold a list together that is on the brink of winning a flag and our team was. From what little actual evidence available there appears to have been a decision to pay the market rate to our stars to get that flag and it bloody near worked.

The factors operating to reverse that were the Beams fiasco and the predicted 10% cap reduction next year.

So on balance overpaying players when in flag winning position I'm prepared to cop

What I'm pissed at is the decision to recruit a player that left the club under disputed circumstances and sh1t talked the club whilst up north.

Expecting the club to go public on it's position before the draft is sheer stupidity of the highest order.

We have now cleared about $2M in cap and are hopefully trying to position ourselves for an extra 2 or 3 first rounders and I hope we don't try to trade up.
 
The Royal Sampler said:
You’re suggesting we’re going to package one of 14 or 16 with our 2021 first to move up?

Where does your confidence on this stem from?
Click to expand...

Yeah that or potentially all 3.

It’s primarily based on Guy’s disastrous interview (because he talked about going tall) and the picks we traded out. To me retaining 26, 33 and 39 in this draft made no logical sense if you expect a bid for Reef after the 1st round. Basically the picks we have at the back end will come in almost that far anyway and even if they don’t the difference in players on our big board will be marginal.

I think Essendon, North and Hawthorn would be our targets. Would it shock you if we tried to move all 3 to get pick 2? Be it over one or two trades?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Scodog10 said:
Yeah that or potentially all 3.

It’s primarily based on Guy’s disastrous interview (because he talked about going tall) and the picks we traded out. To me retaining 26, 33 and 39 in this draft made no logical sense if you expect a bid for Reef after the 1st round. Basically the picks we have at the back end will come in almost that far anyway and even if they don’t the difference in players on our big board will be marginal.

I think Essendon, North and Hawthorn would be our targets. Would it shock you if we tried to move all 3 to get pick 2? Be it over one or two trades?
Click to expand...
It wouldn’t shock me if we tried to get to 2, but it would shock me if North accepted!

I’m intrigued to see what we do. 99% of the angst and hand-wringing off the offseason will be alleviated if we hit on our picks. However if we have another Kennedy/Broomhead situation it would be disastrous. We must get them right.
 
loki04 said:
Looked at how much turnover we have had in last 12 months alone we are nearing a full rebuild especially when the next 2 years are taken into account.

Rebuilds are never done in 1 season.
Click to expand...

We only had 6 list changes in 2019 and 10 this year. We had 12 in 2010 and 11 in 2011. I'm not sure list turnover in and of itself is much of a measure. Perhaps the 1 difference this year is who we've traded. I still think it's a refresh rather than a rebuild. We've added some good prospects over the last couple of drafts and see adding to that group rather than sticking with what we've already tried as the best option. I'm fine with that. Time will tell.
 
Scodog10 said:
Yeah that or potentially all 3.

It’s primarily based on Guy’s disastrous interview (because he talked about going tall) and the picks we traded out. To me retaining 26, 33 and 39 in this draft made no logical sense if you expect a bid for Reef after the 1st round. Basically the picks we have at the back end will come in almost that far anyway and even if they don’t the difference in players on our big board will be marginal.

I think Essendon, North and Hawthorn would be our targets. Would it shock you if we tried to move all 3 to get pick 2? Be it over one or two trades?
Click to expand...

This is certainly the goal. I see the Swans (pick 3) as our most likely trade partner on draft day. They have just the right mix to suit the situation.

- Chasing points for academy kids in 2020 & 2021
- Don't have the public pressure to use pick 3 and don't need the immediate impact - secure coach embarking on a re-jigging of the list that is public knowledge
- Young, existing talent already covered where this draft is strongest at the pointy end

I do think North will be a little more desperate to take a kid high in the draft to appease members, but a savvy manager there may see the wisdom in having a few more first round eggs in their list rebuild over the next two seasons.

I don't see Essendon's picks getting us the future key forward we want and I think the Hawks would get crucified if they traded another first rounder.
 
jackcass said:
We only had 6 list changes in 2019 and 10 this year. We had 12 in 2010 and 11 in 2011. I'm not sure list turnover in and of itself is much of a measure. Perhaps the 1 difference this year is who we've traded. I still think it's a refresh rather than a rebuild. We've added some good prospects over the last couple of drafts and see adding to that group rather than sticking with what we've already tried as the best option. I'm fine with that. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Then we will be refreshing again in 2 years or so...

Never rebuild just "refreshing", call it how you want its not going to be even close to the same team in 2023 as it was in 2017 - 2020.
 
jackcass said:
We've averaged 10 list changes a year since 2010. In 2020 we've had 10 list changes and we've had the AFL reduce list sizes. I'm not sure why this year it should be considered a rebuild when we're actually on average in terms of our list turnover.
Click to expand...

Because of the many best 22-28 types being phased out the last 12 months and then next 24.
 
As a club we're going to be reeking of desperation to put some gloss on an ugly few weeks and there's going to be the temptation there to play hard ball with us again, so it'll be interesting to see how it unfolds.

It's been made very clear that the plan is to trade ourselves into the top 5. My bet is a few jobs may hinge on that result coming to fruition.

I dare say that our future first could be tantalising, given the doom and gloom surrounding 2021.

Let's say, for argument's sake, we finish 8th next year. This is what a Collingwood package looks like:

Collingwood trades: Pick 14, 16 & (2021) 11
Sydney trades: Pick 3


And just for argument's sake, let's see what got a proven commodity and the best FA available in the comp done:

Geelong trades: Pick 13, 15 and 20
GWS trades: Jeremy Cameron, two 2021 2nd round picks

I think the North Melbourne 2nd rounder (looking as low as 19-20 while they're in disarray) will work along with our own 2nd rounder to get Nick Daicos done and by the summer of 2021, Ned Guy, assuming he's still employed and not managing 2nd grade basketballers in Lithuania, will be able to say that we've been able to clear the books while bringing in two kids of top 5 value (Daicos and this year's kid) and another first rounder in Reef.
 
Dogs delisted Suckling, Trengrove and Callum Porter
 
Kappa said:
McInnes at 8 would be a huge gamble, Essendon need a big rebuild and I suspect they'll play it safe with proven gun midfielders and the best KPP available.
Click to expand...

McInnes offers a point of difference than most of the alternatives around that mark. Size. One of the key things missing from their midfield group is physical presence. It's why they try to get Stringer through there. McInnes offers that. That they've got 3 choices gives them the flexibility to overspend on a player type they need.
 
The Royal Sampler said:
If there’s no Reef bid by our pick 14, or whatever that gets pushed back to, does that add to the impetus to trade our 2021 first for pick 15 this year?

Pretty hard to make us match a bid if we own 14, 15, 16 at that point. I don’t know if GWS are likely to bid on Reef at 15, but the guarantee of getting three firsts plus Reef from that hypothetical point onwards definitely makes a trade for 15, or 15 + change, pretty attractive as opposed to the possibility of GWS bidding or trading to someone else who does.
Click to expand...

If a bid comes before 14 then we'd use that to match, pick 15 would slide back by any points deficit is my understanding. Worst case scenario (bid at 8) it'd become pick 20 or 21 I think. If Essendon really wanted to be complete arseholes about it they could bid with their 1st pick rather than their 3rd which would increase any points deficit.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jackcass said:
McInnes offers a point of difference than most of the alternatives around that mark. Size. One of the key things missing from their midfield group is physical presence. It's why they try to get Stringer through there. McInnes offers that. That they've got 3 choices gives them the flexibility to overspend on a player type they need.
Click to expand...

Let them have him at 8. I'd very much doubt they will while Kyle Langford is there as a very similar type.

At the moment Reef can't run out of sight on a dark night and has carried a back injury that initially raised some red flags.

I'm keen to take him on as a project with top-end talent, but I wouldn't get sucked into any hype that has him inside the top 15, let alone top 10.
 
loki04 said:
Then we will be refreshing again in 2 years or so...

Never rebuild just "refreshing", call it how you want its not going to be even close to the same team in 2023 as it was in 2017 - 2020.
Click to expand...

I think I must have more optimism in the kids we already have then you do because I think we've been churning the list since 2013. At some stage you have to give them the opportunity to show their worth. We had 6 debutants this year and still have a few who haven't cracked their cherry. We retain a good strong core player group. Only need a couple of the kids to have Josh Daicos like years and it all turns pretty quickly. Look at Port.
 
jackcass said:
If a bid comes before 14 then we'd use that to match, pick 15 would slide back by any points deficit is my understanding. Worst case scenario (bid at 8) it'd become pick 20 or 21 I think. If Essendon really wanted to be complete arseholes about it they could bid with their 1st pick rather than their 3rd which would increase any points deficit.
Click to expand...
Yeah what I was referring to was live trading for 15 (or whichever number falls between our current 14 and 16 after they all slide), trying to prevent a bid at 15 which would force us to match with 16.

If we got to our first pick without there being a bid on Reef, we woud then be assured of getting all three picks away before having to match anything.

I know Scodog is of the opinion that we may not go in with all three picks, which is another possible scenario, but if we’re to use three firsts (14, 16, 2021 first) I think we can all agree the ideal scenario is not having to use any of them on Reef.
 
Surely we could throw a lifeline to Jackson Trengove? Rookie spot at least.
Back up ruck and KPD. Adds some depth in a couple of areas.
 
Bussie said:
Surely we could throw a lifeline to Jackson Trengove? Rookie spot at least.
Back up ruck and KPD. Adds some depth in a couple of areas.
Click to expand...
Have we got the salary cap room?
 
Scribe26 said:
As a club we're going to be reeking of desperation to put some gloss on an ugly few weeks and there's going to be the temptation there to play hard ball with us again, so it'll be interesting to see how it unfolds.

It's been made very clear that the plan is to trade ourselves into the top 5. My bet is a few jobs may hinge on that result coming to fruition.

I dare say that our future first could be tantalising, given the doom and gloom surrounding 2021.

Let's say, for argument's sake, we finish 8th next year. This is what a Collingwood package looks like:

Collingwood trades: Pick 14, 16 & (2021) 11
Sydney trades: Pick 3


And just for argument's sake, let's see what got a proven commodity and the best FA available in the comp done:

Geelong trades: Pick 13, 15 and 20
GWS trades: Jeremy Cameron, two 2021 2nd round picks

I think the North Melbourne 2nd rounder (looking as low as 19-20 while they're in disarray) will work along with our own 2nd rounder to get Nick Daicos done and by the summer of 2021, Ned Guy, assuming he's still employed and not managing 2nd grade basketballers in Lithuania, will be able to say that we've been able to clear the books while bringing in two kids of top 5 value (Daicos and this year's kid) and another first rounder in Reef.
Click to expand...
No chance Sydney downgrades their first. They’ll be looking to get a selection in before Campbell, their Academy kid.
 
loki04 said:
Think that's exactly what's been intimated but whether they can pull it off is another matter.
Click to expand...
I’ve only heard the words “stronger draft hand”, which I took to mean trading into it with our 2021 first over the next few weeks, rather than reducing our number of early picks to move up.

Both are possible, but you and Sco have taken it an extra step.
 
jackcass said:
What they said was that it wasn't as big an issue as the media were suggesting. Walshy even elaborated to state that we work within the same TPP requirements as every club.
Click to expand...
Not sure your point here? Obviously we work under the same TPP requirements as every club. None of the other clubs were forced to do what we did though (trade players for SFA return).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Jen2310
List Mgmt. Collingwood Trade and FA
1063 1064 1065 1066 1067
Replies
27K
Views
971K
soreplums
soreplums
SchuPie
Trade + FA targets 2024
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
148
Views
10K
Pedro
Pedro
Jen2310
  • Locked
List Mgmt. COLLINGWOOD Trade and F/A Discussion 2023
858 859 860 861 862
Replies
22K
Views
847K
Jen2310
Jen2310
J
Next Key Forward to be traded in
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
jakson68
J
Black_White
  • Poll
Game Day Grand Final 2024: Who Do You Want To Win and Why?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
185
Views
4K
Tadpole
Tadpole
R
2024 Highs and Lows
Replies
1
Views
202
Kes1984
Kes1984
steviewonder36
Anyone collect Membership Lanyard and Caps?
Replies
0
Views
193
steviewonder36
steviewonder36

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top