List Mgmt. Trade and F/A 2020 Cont’d

[Scribe26]

Okay, thanks for being rude again.

Your method gives us 3 first round players.

My method:

Pick 14
Pick 16
Reef
Pick 11 (2021 1st rounder) used this year
Daicos

So my method gives us 5 first round picks, yours gives us 3.

5 is better than 3.

Pick 11 is sucked up on Daicos. It won't exist.

Are you getting this?

 

[Chrispiesssss]

Pick 11 is sucked up on Daicos. It won't exist.

Are you getting this?

WE CAN TRADE INTO A PICK THIS YEAR. How aren’t you getting that? Hahahahaha

 

[Chrispiesssss]

Further more, and I don't mean to be offensive, but the math of this is just incredibly off, just from a points perspective. It's not logical.

Don't forget, pick 11 is gone on Daicos. It's gone.

You're saying that you'd rather have:

Pick 14, 16 & Daicos, Reef

Rather than:

Pick (3-6), Daicos, Reef


I'm trading 14 & 16 for a top 5 every single day of the week and twice on a Sunday.

Again, my father, who has early on-set dementia, understood this concept the first time I explained it to him.

If you mention this father comment 1 more time, I will be blocking you.

I’ve been on this forum for years and not blocked anyone.

Speak with respect. How is that a hard concept to understand?

 

[Matt_352]

I'll just repeat for those in the back row, wanting 'three first rounders', rather than one:

If we trade 2021 1st for a first this year then there is Daicos in 2021.

That's 5 first rounders to 3. You campaigner.

 

[Mooresome]

I'll just repeat for those in the back row, wanting 'three first rounders', rather than one:

You do know repeating yourself is an early sign of dementia and it is hereditary.

 

[LuckyLee]

Our trading strategy suggests we’ll be fielding a much more youthful side in 2021. Plus most of our experienced depth is (rightly) gone and our two best mids will be a year closer to retirement. We will really struggle to cover any injuries to Pendles, Sidebottom, Adams, Crisp or Mihochek. And our injury record ain’t good.

For those reasons I think we’ll slide in 2021 but will be much more interesting to watch and on a much better path to be a genuine Premiership threat in 2022-2024. One step back for hopefully two steps forward.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Matt_352]

If you mention this father comment 1 more time, I will be blocking you.

I’ve been on this forum for years and not blocked anyone.

Speak with respect. How is that a hard concept to understand?

Incredibly rude

 

[Scodog10]

Yep. If Reef gets past 14/16 I’d try and tee up a trade on the night of the Dogs future 2nd (we got for Treloar) to a club with multiple picks in the 40s/50s that hit the points required.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

IMO, we have more than enough with our current picks, but I’d do a deal on a 2021 pick after the Reef bid anyway (depending on the carryover pick we get). Say for instance his bid comes at 22 then I’d trade back in for Adelaide’s 40 or North’s 39 (which will change on the night). COVID will wreak havoc on clubs Vic big board so there’s every chance you could nab a Vic based kid you rate in your top 10 in the 30’s or 40’s.

FWIW that’s why I’m hesitant over going chips in on a top 2-5 pick because this draft will be choc full of smokies and busts. It’s not a no, but it would need to be a strong argument for it to be a yes and Daicos as a free hit certainly softens the blow.

 

[BEEG]

Guys why would we trade next years 1st when lets face it we have no idea where it will come in.

I have no doubt we can trade it next year for the following years draft.

 

[Scribe26]

WE CAN TRADE INTO A PICK THIS YEAR. How aren’t you getting that? Hahahahaha

You're right, 5 is better than 3.

Every time, 5 is better than 3.

I mean, how easy is it to 'win' arguments when you just forget about the purpose of a draft, talent identification and just pretend faceless players in a draft are all equally-valued.

 

[Chrispiesssss]

Guys why would we trade next years 1st when lets face it we have no idea where it will come in.

I have no doubt we can trade it next year for the following years draft.

Yup, you could do that too.

We would end up with even more first round talent. If we are bottom 5 next year, we could trade pick 5 for 2 first rounders in the 2022 draft.

 

[Chrispiesssss]

You're right, 5 is better than 3.

Every time, 5 is better than 3.

I mean, how easy is it to 'win' arguments when you just forget about the purpose of a draft, talent identification and just pretend faceless players in a draft are all equally-valued.

Only reason I mentioned 5 is better than 3 is because you said we were ending up with the same amount of talent whichever method we went with.


Ps no one is swapping pick 14 & pick 16 for pick 2. It would need to be 3 picks.

 

[Scodog10]

Okay, thanks for being rude again.

Your method gives us 3 first round players.

My method:

Pick 14
Pick 16
Reef
Pick 11 (2021 1st rounder) used this year
Daicos

So my method gives us 5 first round picks, yours gives us 3.

5 is better than 3.

IMO, that depends on whether you prefer quantity over quality. There’s a lot of variables in the draft so perhaps a property example is more apt. Some might prefer one $3 million property in Brighton over three $1m properties in Reservoir so to say 5 is better than 3 in such an absolute manner is perhaps an over exaggeration?

 

[Scribe26]

Only reason I mentioned 5 is better than 3 is because you said we were ending up with the same amount of talent whichever method we went with.


Ps no one is swapping pick 14 & pick 16 for pick 2. It would need to be 3 picks.

Hence, using the 2021 pick to complete the deal.

It's seemingly risky, but the kind of thing a club would do if their talent identification stresses the importance of picking high this year and knows that they have two first rounders (reef and Daicos) to supplement the list thereafter.

 

[Chrispiesssss]

IMO, that depends on whether you prefer quantity over quality. There’s a lot of variables in the draft so perhaps a property example is more apt. Some might prefer one $3 million property in Brighton over three $1m properties in Reservoir so to say 5 is better than 3 in such an absolute manner is perhaps an over exaggeration?

I understand what you’re saying.

However, we haven’t had much first round talent. I think having a few shots at the draft board isn’t the worst thing for us atm.

We have only drafted 4 first round picks on our list from the 2010s.

 

[sr36]

I'm only opposed to trading 3 first rounders for any one player, this would be a huge mistake

Yep. There would be hysteria if we traded 3 first rounders for an established senior player, I don't get why we'd consider doing it for an unestablished player.

 

[stormskye]

how is next years first just gone? The whole point of having access to a father son/academy is you can use that picks value in other areas. It’s not gone. You don’t just throw it out like it has no value...

I couldn’t disagree more with using 3 first rounders to move into the top 5.

talk about not learning from the past.

Jeremy Cameron

5

Jeremy Cameron

Age

31

Ht

196cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.5

3star

K

9.0

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

5.4

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

2.6

5star

D

10.0

3star

K

7.1

3star

HB

2.9

2star

M

4.6

4star

T

2.0

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

3.2

3star

M

4.6

5star

T

2.4

4star

G

2.0

5star

a proven AFL elite forward took 3 firsts in a trade but second rounders were given back. Even this was overs and I would never give up 3, let alone for some unproven kid...

 

[sr36]

Pick 11 is sucked up on Daicos. It won't exist.

Are you getting this?

No it's not. It's a recruiting asset that can be used in a range of different ways. We can trade it for a draft pick this year. Next year we can trade it for a player or a future pick.

 

[Scribe26]

Yep. There would be hysteria if we traded 3 first rounders for an established senior player, I don't get why we'd consider doing it for an unestablished player.

You can trade three first round picks in 2020/21 and end up with three first round players in 2020/21 - two of which conceivably come in the top 5.

It may not look right on face value (trading three late first rounders for an early one), but it's actually a very savvy way to have a shot at an elite talent after finishing in a GF, PF and SF over the last three years.

There's public hysteria about every move Collingwood makes - I think if there's been an estimation that there's a talent or two that excites us inside the top 3 or 4, the club will happily bare the brunt of that.

 

[unplugged]

Guys why would we trade next years 1st when lets face it we have no idea where it will come in.

I have no doubt we can trade it next year for the following years draft.

Yes it can work against you (you fall to shit Adelaide style and get a top 5 pick), but: Let other clubs "hope" or predict that you're going to go backwards. Let them think it's potentially good value. And then either perform similarly to 2020 or improve. It's the risk both parties take.

Let's face it, at the end of 2019 no one would've suspected Geelong's first round pick would be tied to 2nd place. And vice versa not many would've truly expected the value of GWS' Pick.

 

[Scribe26]

No it's not. It's a recruiting asset that can be used in a range of different ways. We can trade it for a draft pick this year. Next year we can trade it for a player or a future pick.

Exactly mate.

My contention is to use it as an asset to get into the pointy end of this draft, when there are more than a couple of key forwards worthy of a top two pick.

 

[unplugged]

Gee this time of year is a real come down, isn't it. Pre-season, season, finals, pre-trade speculation, trade, post-trade melts and then........ just this awkward few weeks before the draft. Then not much again.

On the plus side I've actually gone back to listening to music at work rather than radio! Refreshing.

 

[sr36]

You can trade three first round picks in 2020/21 and end up with three first round players in 2020/21 - two of which conceivably come in the top 5.

You may also be able to trade next year's first and end up with 5 first round picks, one of which is conceivably a top 5. That's how Id go. But I don't know enough about this draft or the KPFs to have a worthwhile opinion.

 

[pies 4 ever]

Further more, and I don't mean to be offensive, but the math of this is just incredibly off, just from a points perspective. It's not logical.
Don't forget, pick 11 is gone on Daicos. It's gone.
You're saying that you'd rather have:
Pick 14, 16 & Daicos, Reef
Rather than:
Pick (3-6), Daicos, Reef
I'm trading 14 & 16 for a top 5 every single day of the week and twice on a Sunday.
Again, my father, who has early on-set dementia, understood this concept the first time I explained it to him.

No.1 You are rude and condescending with your comments about your fathers Dementia.
No 2 You do realize that we can trade next years first into this years draft and, as we have, 2 x 2nd, 1 x 3rd & 1 x 4th rounders have sufficient points for N Daicos. As a matter of fact we can also trade either our extra 2nd or our 3rd in to this years draft, if we are confident that (a) we can get more point by what we trade out next year or (b) we can go into deficit if we want to (not recommended).
(3) So we can have 14, 16, trade value for our 2021 1st (say pick 10) & either 2nd or 3rd in this years draft if we want.
(4) We could probably get a Cox or Reid (KP talls), Ford or Perkins Mids), McInnes, Callow/Baldwin (KPF) & N. Daicos, and probably a late pick.
(5) Just for the record which of these would you pay 3 x 1st pick for.
2009 Scully, 2010 Swallow, 2011 Patton, 2012 Whitfield, 2013 Boyd, 2014 McCartin, 2015 Wietering, 2016 McGrath, 2017 Raynor, 2018 Walsh.

 

[Shinboner1]

Doubt Collingwood would get as much as you think with a downgrade of pick 14 and 16, could see it maybe going to a 10 or 11.
No way you're getting something inside of the top 8 unless you're throwing in a 2021 first or 2nd.
If I was an essendon I would do 14,16 and 2021 first for pick 7 or 8 etc.