List Mgmt. Trade and F/A - Part 3

[JLC]

Ask the club

Lol.

 

[Quicky]

Speaking of Meh

View attachment 1112373

Surprised by Daicos. Not Grundy or Steele though. Steele is having a dirty year of it.

 

[jackcass]

if nobody else is willing to do that deal, then why on earth did we do it?.

To bring in Beams.

 

[jackcass]

Richards & Stengle for mid season draft. Two had nut runners!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I'm not even sure what they are but are nut runners a positive thing?

 

[jackcass]

Surprised by Daicos. Not Grundy or Steele though. Steele is having a dirty year of it.

Anyone who spends time in the guts will have a lower DE%. So many disposals under extreme pressure, so many flicked handballs or quick kicks touched or completely blocked, so many possessions going nowhere.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I'm not even sure what they are but are nut runners a positive thing?

I don’t think so. Pretty sure Sidebottom had to have nut runners inserted at one point. Ouch!

 

[Robbiestafford17]

The 2020 trade period is the disaster that keeps on giving. I keep hearing "its time to move on", but the long term consequences continue to pile up. Is it not bad enough we traded away Phillips, Stephenson and Treloar for little to nothing?

Apparently not, because now Daicos is firming as a red hot favourite to get bid on at pick 1-2 this year, and with no first or second round pick for points (doggies may as well be a 3rd rounder), this will likely compromise our draft position in 2022, while we're rebuilding and high picks are more important than ever.

Oh wait, Korda said we can still make finals this year and that he doesn't regret anything from the 2020 trade period. I guess everything is fine and dandy, absolutely nothing to worry about at all...

 

[Scodog10]

The 2020 trade period is the disaster that keeps on giving. I keep hearing "its time to move on", but the long term consequences continue to pile up. Is it not bad enough we traded away Phillips, Stephenson and Treloar for little to nothing?

Apparently not, because now Daicos is firming as a red hot favourite to get bid on at pick 1-2 this year, and with no first or second round pick for points (doggies may as well be a 3rd rounder), this will likely compromise our draft position in 2022, while we're rebuilding and high picks are more important than ever.

Oh wait, Korda said we can still make finals this year and that he doesn't regret anything from the 2020 trade period. I guess everything is fine and dandy, absolutely nothing to worry about at all...

This is not new information, but rather something the club would have anticipated at trade time 2020 and has been plainly obvious to anyone monitoring the situation for the past 3 months.

Our options were to trade into the 2020 or 2022 drafts or have our now likely top 6 pick absorbed regardless of what 2021 picks we traded it for.

We no doubt also have plans in place to address the expected points deficit in 2021 which aren’t apparent to us yet. I hope it’s to trade out the likes of Steele/ Howe/ JDG rather than 2022 picks, but again these are discussions that have been ongoing for months

Also to again clarify Korda’s comments were that he hopes we can still play finals. It was a nothing statement in relation to his expectations because like us he probably knows we’re ****ed, but he clearly can’t say that...

 

[Robbiestafford17]

We no doubt also have plans in place to address the expected points deficit in 2021 which aren’t apparent to us yet. I hope it’s to trade out the likes of Steele/ Howe/ JDG rather than 2022 picks, but again these are discussions that have been ongoing for months

Also to again clarify Korda’s comments were that he hopes we can still play finals. It was a nothing statement in relation to his expectations because like us he probably knows we’re f’ed, but he clearly can’t say that...

How can you be so sure of that? The board thought we were playing finals this year, and traded those 2021 picks with that in mind. Trading our older players for decent draft picks isn't anywhere near as easy as it sounds either; a lot of them will either refuse to play for another club, come with baggage(de Goey) or simply not be worth anything on the trade table.

If the possibility of finishing bottom 2 in 2021 occurred to our list management and board in October last year, there is absolutely no way we would've traded our future first. It's 2021 now, and we're likely to finish bottom 2, and almost certainly facing some kind of draft deficit for 2022.

 

[Moore of the Same]

This is not new information, but rather something the club would have anticipated at trade time 2020 and has been plainly obvious to anyone monitoring the situation for the past 3 months.

Our options were to trade into the 2020 or 2022 drafts or have our now likely top 6 pick absorbed regardless of what 2021 picks we traded it for.

We no doubt also have plans in place to address the expected points deficit in 2021 which aren’t apparent to us yet. I hope it’s to trade out the likes of Steele/ Howe/ JDG rather than 2022 picks, but again these are discussions that have been ongoing for months

Also to again clarify Korda’s comments were that he hopes we can still play finals. It was a nothing statement in relation to his expectations because like us he probably knows we’re f’ed, but he clearly can’t say that...

Not being combative, but I want to make sure I understand your point. Are we saying that the club expected to be entering a rebuilding phase this year and that broadly the expectation was that we would finish lower on the ladder? Therefore the club had some knowledge that we might end up with a top 5 draft pick and still decided to trade that pick into last year's draft?

To me, that feels like the most absurd way to utilise the resources at your disposal. Even if the pick was going to be absorbed, you hit the trade table knowing that you have a top 2-6 pick in the draft, which is enticing for another team that might be willing to part with more to get it.

The action feels incongruous with a team that is rebuilding. It feels like the club traded this years first fully expecting to play finals this year.

 

[Robbiestafford17]

To me, that feels like the most absurd way to utilise the resources at your disposal. Even if the pick was going to be absorbed, you hit the trade table knowing that you have a top 2-6 pick in the draft, which is enticing for another team that might be willing to part with more to get it.

The action feels incongruous with a team that is rebuilding. It feels like the club traded this years first fully expecting to play finals this year.

This.

While much has been made of Treloar's departure, the real disaster was trading pick 1 or 2 this year for 2020 picks 24 and 30.

The 2020 draft was always a dangerous draft to attack because none of the Victorian kids played; it gets exponentially harder to accurately assess players outside the top 10.

 

[Scodog10]

How can you be so sure of that? The board thought we were playing finals this year, and traded those 2021 picks with that in mind. Trading our older players for decent draft picks isn't anywhere near as easy as it sounds either; a lot of them will either refuse to play for another club, come with baggage(de Goey) or simply not be worth anything on the trade table.

If the possibility of finishing bottom 2 in 2021 occurred to our list management and board in October last year, there is absolutely no way we would've traded our future first. It's 2021 now, and we're likely to finish bottom 2, and almost certainly facing some kind of draft deficit for 2022.

Because I’ve thought way too much on it and as much as it’s easy to hang shit on them posthumously they were very crafty on draft night 2020. I’ve been very open with my comments on moving certain senior players to improve our position, but all of it hinges on the outcome being on our terms and opposition clubs need to come at them. For example Steele and Howe by now should know they won’t win a premiership with Collingwood and their manager should be calling clubs like GC, Melbourne and Sydney about a possible move. That will all be happening in the background right now and if it came to pass both would still be worthy of top 20 picks.

I’d say you’re correct that had they thought we’d finish bottom 2 they’d probably have kept the pick, but we won’t finish that low, who would have considered it a possibility in December 2020 and even then it’s not a “good” place to be in because here are your options:

a) hold the pick and basically waste it
b) trade into the 2022 draft and either death ride whoever we trade with or then try to use that pick to get back into the 2021 draft after a bid on Daicos

Option A doesn’t work because we’re shit, but not shit enough for a Daicos bid to fall after our first pick. Option B just kicks the can down the road or takes a lot of speculating. The option we took got us talent through the door in 2020 which will be approaching 21yo with hopefully 20-30 games under their belt before the kid or kids from option B even plays.

The real question is do you trust the talent ID on Poulter, McMahon and McReery because that was what we got by choosing the path we did?

Edit: there is actually a third option on the table which was to use it to trade in players. The main issue there is that we’ll be a hard sell without significant change and that play could have left us even worse off with a GC and Weller type situation.

Not being combative, but I want to make sure I understand your point. Are we saying that the club expected to be entering a rebuilding phase this year and that broadly the expectation was that we would finish lower on the ladder? Therefore the club had some knowledge that we might end up with a top 5 draft pick and still decided to trade that pick into last year's draft?

To me, that feels like the most absurd way to utilise the resources at your disposal. Even if the pick was going to be absorbed, you hit the trade table knowing that you have a top 2-6 pick in the draft, which is enticing for another team that might be willing to part with more to get it.

The action feels incongruous with a team that is rebuilding. It feels like the club traded this years first fully expecting to play finals this year.

All good I get your angle in general. That’s not what I’m saying though.

To be succinct we knew Daicos was a an absolute jet and any pick we had was certain to be absorbed by a bid except pick 1 so the moves we made were always likely to place us in deficit. In order to not have our 2021 1st wasted on matching a bid (regardless of where it fell) our options were to trade into the 2020 or 2022 drafts. Some on here will be 2022 fans and others like me prefer the time value of money approach so will be 2020 fans. From my perspective there’s no right or wrong except allowing our 2021 1st to be absorbed which guarantees we were always in trouble from a points perspective.

Speculating on your questions I suspect the club felt we’d be a 6-12 team where with an ounce of luck we play finals and without it we don’t. Hence we felt that with a decline a possible outcome we chose to get the kids in early to accelerate their development in a compromised draft rather than wait to get that same access.

 

[philthy05]

I would be trading Grundy to Port and praying they are close enough to a flag to throw something crazy at us.

We have the very competent lycett and 2 ready made rucks behind him. Zero need to go after a ruck

I think you make a really good point with Grundy and Port Adelaide. They would probably believe that he would be the last piece in the puzzle to secure a flag. As much as I would love to keep him, we could get some real talent with his salary and would get some nice picks on top. We are in no position to maintain the likes of Grundy and would probably go places faster without him. Having said that, I don't believe we would trade him and i'm fine with that.

William Drew & Todd Marshall
1st round pick 2021.

That's what I would take and think Port would struggle knock that back if they could afford it.

****ing lol

Two meh guys and a pick that gets absorbed by a Daicos bid? Hard pass. That is also completely ignoring that Port weren’t interested in Grundy for a reason namely that they already have Lycett on a bloated contract...

Edit: not having a dig Beeg because I agree with your thinking that shedding his salary works for us. The problem is that everyone knows that’s why we’d be moving him so for us to get remotely adequate value clubs need to come at him and we’re trading his salary not him. That being the case you need a club with both cap space and need of a ruckman. Sydney’s the only one that ticks both boxes, IMO, and again they need to target him when I think they’ll have their sights set on Moore.

Meh players? Lol

lycett on a bloated contract? He’s on 550-600k. Every starting ruck in the league is getting paid that or more.. he’s a bargain for what we are paying

 

[manicpie]

We have the very competent lycett and 2 ready made rucks behind him. Zero need to go after a ruck

******* lol

Meh players? Lol

lycett on a bloated contract? He’s on 550-600k. Every starting ruck in the league is getting paid that or more.. he’s a bargain for what we are paying

I agree with everything you said, however, you haven't won anything yet, and there is no guarantee you will win anything this year or next. Don't count your chickens before they hatch. You sound like someone who thinks their club has achieved something already just because they are going alright, you're no different to us until you hold that cup up

 

[Scodog10]

We have the very competent lycett and 2 ready made rucks behind him. Zero need to go after a ruck

******* lol

Meh players? Lol

lycett on a bloated contract? He’s on 550-600k. Every starting ruck in the league is getting paid that or more.. he’s a bargain for what we are paying

I know right suggesting those two meh players for Grundy is a bit of a pisser.

The chatter is only because of his contract the guy is still legit uber top end and on his way to a 3rd AA in 4 years (if they pick two ruckman) so two guys that don’t improve Collingwood does not interest me. Whereas one guy like Amon/ Houston/ Duursma plus a pick is the only way it gets done and you rightly wouldn’t do that deal so it’s a pointless discussion.

That’s a lot of money for Lycett in a post COVID footy landscape!

 

[Ugene41]

Because I’ve thought way too much on it and as much as it’s easy to hang sh*t on them posthumously they were very crafty on draft night 2020. I’ve been very open with my comments on moving certain senior players to improve our position, but all of it hinges on the outcome being on our terms and opposition clubs need to come at them. For example Steele and Howe by now should know they won’t win a premiership with Collingwood and their manager should be calling clubs like GC, Melbourne and Sydney about a possible move. That will all be happening in the background right now and if it came to pass both would still be worthy of top 20 picks.

I’d say you’re correct that had they thought we’d finish bottom 2 they’d probably have kept the pick, but we won’t finish that low, who would have in December 2020 and even then it’s not a “good” place to be in because here are your options:

a) hold the pick and basically waste it
b) trade into the 2022 draft and either death ride whoever we trade with or then try to use that pick to get back into the 2021 draft after a bid on Daicos

Option A doesn’t work because we’re sh*t, but not sh*t enough for a Daicos bid to fall after our first pick. Option B just kicks the can down the road or takes a lot of speculating. The option we took got us talent through the door in 2020 which will be approaching 21yo with hopefully 20-30 games under their belt before the kid or kids from option B even plays.

The real question is do you trust the talent ID on Poulter, McMahon and McReery because that was what we got by choosing the path we did?

Edit: there is actually a third option on the table which was to use it to trade in players. The main issue there is that we’ll be a hard sell without significant change and that play could have left us even worse off with a GC and Weller type situation.



All good I get your angle in general. That’s not what I’m saying though.

To be succinct we knew Daicos was a an absolute jet and any pick we had was certain to be absorbed by a bid except pick 1 so the moves we made were always likely to place us in deficit. In order to not have our 2021 1st wasted on matching a bid (regardless of where it fell) our options were to trade into the 2020 or 2022 drafts. Some on here will be 2022 fans and others like me prefer the time value of money approach so will be 2020 fans. From my perspective there’s no right or wrong except allowing our 2021 1st to be absorbed which guarantees we were always in trouble from a points perspective.

Speculating on your questions I suspect the club felt we’d be a 6-12 team we’re with an ounce of luck we play finals and without it we don’t. Hence we felt that with a decline a possible outcome we chose to get the kids in early to accelerate their development in a compromised draft rather than wait to get that same access.

Yep absolutely agree with you here. People seem to only focus on the highest pick number draft pick we can get rather than the talent and development we get.

If we get a top 5 pick this year we could potentially trade it for a 2021 first round pick that would be used to match Daicos plus a late first round pick in 2022. No one knows what the 2022 draft will look like. It could be a 2012 type talent pool and your late first round could be a Ben Kennedy where you develop him on the list for 4 years till 2026 and realise he's no good.

People forget the amount of list turnover we had last year where we needed talent in immediately. Getting two extra top 31 picks in 2020 is better than one late first round pick in 2022. I mean would you rather have Poulter and McMahon developing for 2 years and ready to help us challenge again in 2023 or keep Scharenberg and Wills for another 2 years?

We have a 1000 point deficit this year assuming Daicos goes pick 1. There are plenty of ways to make up that deficit. We could trade our current second to a couple of later picks to add 200-300 points. Trade our 2022 second round to a couple of thirds this year for another 600-700 points.

 

[stormskye]

Yep absolutely agree with you here. People seem to only focus on the highest pick number draft pick we can get rather than the talent and development we get.

If we get a top 5 pick this year we could potentially trade it for a 2021 first round pick that would be used to match Daicos plus a late first round pick in 2022. No one knows what the 2022 draft will look like. It could be a 2012 type talent pool and your late first round could be a Ben Kennedy where you develop him on the list for 4 years till 2026 and realise he's no good.

People forget the amount of list turnover we had last year where we needed talent in immediately. Getting two extra top 31 picks in 2020 is better than one late first round pick in 2022. I mean would you rather have Poulter and McMahon developing for 2 years and ready to help us challenge again in 2023 or keep Scharenberg and Wills for another 2 years?

We have a 1000 point deficit this year assuming Daicos goes pick 1. There are plenty of ways to make up that deficit. We could trade our current second to a couple of later picks to add 200-300 points. Trade our 2022 second round to a couple of thirds this year for another 600-700 points.

We are rebuilding, next years second rounder will be low 20’s, we need picks like that to rebuild the list. I don’t want to trade any of those.

 

[stevebbb]

we have enough talent between 18 and 28 years old to have a couple of down years, then push again after that
new coach, the deadwood gone, more young talent coming in, maybe a big free agent coming in, maybe a couple of trade steals

FB: Maynard, ______, Noble
HB: Quaynor, Moore, Crisp
C: J.Daicos, ______, ______
HF: Elliott, Kelly, ______
FF: Mihocek, ______, ______
F: T.Brown, Grundy, Adams
INT: ______, Henry, Macrae, McCreery

(hopefully add N.Daicos, McInness, Poulter, others? to that list)

Fill in the gaps

 

[Gabbo64]

I'm not even sure what they are but are nut runners a positive thing?

I think he means two runners who used to have nuts!!

 

[Matrix10]

we have enough talent between 18 and 28 years old to have a couple of down years, then push again after that
new coach, the deadwood gone, more young talent coming in, maybe a big free agent coming in, maybe a couple of trade steals

FB: Maynard, ______, Noble
HB: Quaynor, Moore, Crisp
C: J.Daicos, ______, ______
HF: Elliott, Kelly, ______
FF: Mihocek, ______, ______
F: T.Brown, Grundy, Adams
INT: ______, Henry, Macrae, McCreery

(hopefully add N.Daicos, McInness, Poulter, others? to that list)

Fill in the gaps

There is one more gap there, T. Brown is not best 22 ..

 

[philthy05]

I agree with everything you said, however, you haven't won anything yet, and there is no guarantee you will win anything this year or next. Don't count your chickens before they hatch. You sound like someone who thinks their club has achieved something already just because they are going alright, you're no different to us until you hold that cup up

pointing out Marshall and drew are not “meh” players and that lycett is a competent ruck and we have two ready backups in no way suggests any of what you’ve accused me of

I know right suggesting those two meh players for Grundy is a bit of a pisser.

The chatter is only because of his contract the guy is still legit uber top end and on his way to a 3rd AA in 4 years (if they pick two ruckman) so two guys that don’t improve Collingwood does not interest me. Whereas one guy like Amon/ Houston/ Duursma plus a pick is the only way it gets done and you rightly wouldn’t do that deal so it’s a pointless discussion.

That’s a lot of money for Lycett in a post COVID footy landscape!

Marshall and drew aren’t “meh” players and that is what I was disputing, not grundys trade value.

what first string ruckmen are better than lycett and on less money?

feel free to name them...

 

[Ugene41]

We are rebuilding, next years second rounder will be low 20’s, we need picks like that to rebuild the list. I don’t want to trade any of those.

Sure but if we go down that route we've effectively traded a late 2022 first rounder and early 20s 2022 pick for Poulter and McMahon in 2020. For our rebuild, a 20-30 game experienced Poulter/McMahon is going to be much better than a pick 15 and 21 in 2022 when we want to get back into the finals by 2023-4

 

[Maison]

After the disappointing return of the last trade period, I'm a little more optimistic looking forward given the early performance of the 2020 Draftees.

With a Top 3 Pick in Daicos in the bag albeit by going into deficit and you'd think another top 5 pick in 2022 we should be a good in position to rebound within 3 years. Should we not elect to resign Degoey and let him walk as a free agent - which on performance and availability may be the go - we could have 2 picks within the top 5 in 2022 depending on the compensation.

Even better If we can snag a couple of out of contract/free agents/homesick youngsters

Yes it's not we'd all like but the opportunity to reboot the list is there. It will just come down to whether there is confidence in Buckley's ability to develop talent.

 

[sr36]

Our options were to trade into the 2020 or 2022 drafts or have our now likely top 6 pick absorbed regardless of what 2021 picks we traded it for.

There were a couple of other options. We could have traded for a player or alternatively we could have used them in 2021 - traded for Daicos points and 2021 picks and we would have ended up with a better 2021 draft hand than we got for them in 2020 - assuming equal drafts. So to me, I'm hoping that they did it because they rated the 2020 draft higher than 2021, rather than impatience, PR, or simply because they cut so many that they had to fill list spots in 2020.

 

[sr36]

Because I’ve thought way too much on it and as much as it’s easy to hang sh*t on them posthumously they were very crafty on draft night 2020. I’ve been very open with my comments on moving certain senior players to improve our position, but all of it hinges on the outcome being on our terms and opposition clubs need to come at them. For example Steele and Howe by now should know they won’t win a premiership with Collingwood and their manager should be calling clubs like GC, Melbourne and Sydney about a possible move. That will all be happening in the background right now and if it came to pass both would still be worthy of top 20 picks.

I’d say you’re correct that had they thought we’d finish bottom 2 they’d probably have kept the pick, but we won’t finish that low, who would have considered it a possibility in December 2020 and even then it’s not a “good” place to be in because here are your options:

a) hold the pick and basically waste it
b) trade into the 2022 draft and either death ride whoever we trade with or then try to use that pick to get back into the 2021 draft after a bid on Daicos

Option A doesn’t work because we’re sh*t, but not sh*t enough for a Daicos bid to fall after our first pick. Option B just kicks the can down the road or takes a lot of speculating. The option we took got us talent through the door in 2020 which will be approaching 21yo with hopefully 20-30 games under their belt before the kid or kids from option B even plays.

The real question is do you trust the talent ID on Poulter, McMahon and McReery because that was what we got by choosing the path we did?

Edit: there is actually a third option on the table which was to use it to trade in players. The main issue there is that we’ll be a hard sell without significant change and that play could have left us even worse off with a GC and Weller type situation.



All good I get your angle in general. That’s not what I’m saying though.

To be succinct we knew Daicos was a an absolute jet and any pick we had was certain to be absorbed by a bid except pick 1 so the moves we made were always likely to place us in deficit. In order to not have our 2021 1st wasted on matching a bid (regardless of where it fell) our options were to trade into the 2020 or 2022 drafts. Some on here will be 2022 fans and others like me prefer the time value of money approach so will be 2020 fans. From my perspective there’s no right or wrong except allowing our 2021 1st to be absorbed which guarantees we were always in trouble from a points perspective.

Speculating on your questions I suspect the club felt we’d be a 6-12 team where with an ounce of luck we play finals and without it we don’t. Hence we felt that with a decline a possible outcome we chose to get the kids in early to accelerate their development in a compromised draft rather than wait to get that same access.

Holding the pick and doing a simple trade to increase points for the Daicos bid wouldn't have been wasting it. It would have protected the two seconds and 2 thirds that we will pay for Daicos. More than we got for our picks.

In the 2020 draft, our trading wasn't crafty at all, we did a couple of nice trades to get some extra points for Daicos.

But ultimately we traded out a first and a second for Poulter, McMahon, McCreery and about 500 2021 points. Additionally, McMahon and McCreery may have survived until our picks anyway.