List Mgmt. Trade and F/A - Part 3

[doppleganger]

I don't think a team needs to tank to draft well. We all agree that Collingwood needs to embrace the draft and do better at identifying and developing talent in-house vs the Mayne, Wells, Beams scenarios. We're already seeing that with the kids we've played this year.

There is no benefit to embracing an attitude of "let's write 2022 off" to get the best kid possible but there is no denying that the lower your pick the greater the chance that the kid you want to develop will be available.

If we use Hawthorn as a model they developed well in-house, traded astutely, and were also great at keeping their talent on the park. There's so much more to it than just selecting the right stock on draft day.

Yep.

All that has happened is Collingwood pivoted, we were draft and youth heavy in 2012-15 whilst never bottoming out.

We then had a period where we traded out of the draft for more mature talent...obviously not managed well with salary cap fallout.

Now we are back in a more youth oriented phase. We need to draft well, we don't need to finish bottom four and get a top4 pick to draft well.

And we still need to ensure we have enough senior onfield leadership to support, develop and drive standards with our kids.

 

[sr36]

Yep.

All that has happened is Collingwood pivoted, we were draft and youth heavy in 2012-15 whilst never bottoming out.

We then had a period where we traded out of the draft for more mature talent...obviously not managed well with salary cap fallout.

I actually quite liked our rebuild strategy until we got impatient with Wells and Mayne and then went all in on win now. We were also stung by getting so few late hits in the draft.

A good mixture of draft and young recruits with a decade ahead of them.

 

[Crazy Tails]

In hindsight the trading out of our future first for two 2nd rounders last year looks horrific now.

What was the transaction again and who did we pick with those selections?

I think I said it at the time but I would have much preferred to hold the pick and assess this off season. Yes an early pick is going to be absorbed by matching on Daicos but we could have held off and split the pick this off season. ie: Pick 2 for two top 15 picks. One of those would be needed to match for Daicos but we would then still have another top 15 pick to grab another top end talent. Is having two top 15 picks (Daicos + 2021 pick) better than Daicos plus 2 players in the 20s in 2020? I suppose we will never know.

 

[Rebuilder]

In hindsight the trading out of our future first for two 2nd rounders last year looks horrific now.

What was the transaction again and who did we pick with those selections?

I think I said it at the time but I would have much preferred to hold the pick and assess this off season. Yes an early pick is going to be absorbed by matching on Daicos but we could have held off and split the pick this off season. ie: Pick 2 for two top 15 picks. One of those would be needed to match for Daicos but we would then still have another top 15 pick to grab another top end talent. Is having two top 15 picks (Daicos + 2021 pick) better than Daicos plus 2 players in the 20s in 2020? I suppose we will never know.

I think it's Poulter and McMahon, you'd be very happy with Poulter already and if big Mac became that Key Forward you wouldn't worry about a pick 15 in this draft.

 

[loki04]

No you ain't, you are promoting using the AFL team as a development squad.

You are preaching from the SoS and Connolly book of list management.


It makes sense to gain access to top 5 talents every year.

Often kids identified as top 5 talents aren't actually top line AFL players.

The important thing isn't getting access to a top5 draft pick, it is actually ensuring you just consistently add quality AFL capable players to your list.


Why would we give up a pick?

If we are sh*t and come 16th next year and get pick 3 it will be sh*t....you think that is a good thing because of the access to "elite" talent.

If some of our kids improve and we are "mediocre" and come 10th to "only" get pick 9 that is a good thing we are on the imporve...yet you think that is stupid because we miss out on "elite" talent.

Despite the fact that in 5 years time, the player taken at pick 9 can be just as good as that taken with pick 3.

Yes I am much like this season you play a mix of kids and seniors in support, how many wins did we get?

What i am opposed too is going out and trying trade in a heap of average types or role players or mid age a graders who won't be part of the next tilt but may make us a middle rung team too early.

No finishing bottom 5 next year won't be shit and 12 months later will be forgotten about and everyone will loving the shiny new gun on the list.

You keep stating pick 9 always end up better then top 3 to 5 picks its a load of shit and only sometimes happens. Your whole premise is crap off selective picks.

As I stated if your talent id, development team and coaching group is shit it won't matter what picks you have.

Access to better picks in EVERY round gives access to better quality and increased chances of finding good player to "add to your list".

Finishing higher up too soon leaves you bereft more often then not with those match winning top liners.

2 years down does not hurt anything long term if your club is good off field.

You say sos and Connelly I say nearly every other coach out there barring the odd exception who as yet have not won shit by avoiding it but stay competitive.

 

[HeathySure]

With the little exposed form and limited football over the last 2 season, there’s going to be a lot of guess work in assessing/ranking players in this years draft.

underated post.

 

[loki04]

Yep.

All that has happened is Collingwood pivoted, we were draft and youth heavy in 2012-15 whilst never bottoming out.

We then had a period where we traded out of the draft for more mature talent...obviously not managed well with salary cap fallout.

Now we are back in a more youth oriented phase. We need to draft well, we don't need to finish bottom four and get a top4 pick to draft well.

And we still need to ensure we have enough senior onfield leadership to support, develop and drive standards with our kids.

A point i made many times! obviously you don't know the difference between nature taking it couse and full blown tanking. Or chose to ignore those posts where I referenced this.

And yes you need top 5 talents in your team or you will always be bridesmades and lack match winners who can turn the tide of a game.

Richmond dont win 3 flags without dusty had they done your suggestion they wouldn't have him

 

[sr36]

Can you imagine if Trav Cloke was playing in those days? 1 on 1 all day with acres to lead into, no need to chase and tackle, no pressure on the kicker... He'd kick more than all of them easily.

There's a bit of truth there - not Trav though. He didn't have the pace to get separation like the really big goal kickers from that era. Buddy on the other hand would have broken the 150 goals a season record - multiple times.

 

[loki04]

The Hawks were down for three years. In the first two of them they got bonus picks, before they changed the system:
They were 2nd last in 2004 - got Roughead and Buddy early
Third last in 2005 - Got X Ellis and Dowler early

Then only one first rounder in 2006 after the system was changed.
6th last in 2006 - Got - Mitch Thorp early

So without the bonus picks, they would have got Roughy, Ellis and Thorp from their early choices for their time at the bottom. One gun, one meh, one bust. I think if you looked through those drafts, there'd be some teams who finished reasonably high, who did just as well or better with their first round picks.

They also added Lewis at 7.

You will find teams around them also had pp.

They also got Hodge at pick 1 not from bottoming but again went after a top line pick from the draft.

You guys also ignoring the fact it benefits all draft ranges across the board. Which allows you to add picks low 20s late 30s and so on...

 

[loki04]

+Sydney (19 and 20), Melbourne (14, 15 and 16) and the Bulldogs (12 and 13). The next in line are Carlton, GC and Fremantle who will all spike in the next 18 months.

A two year bottom 4 stint should be what the club is planning for because if you then include the 2020 draft and 2023 draft with a 10-14 finish you’re looking at investment in 4 consecutive drafts and only two bottomed out years.

Pluck a Stephens or Dow along the way and you reload very quickly. Cap management is paramount though so you can go to the FA market post 2023.

Yup Sydney Academy has fed them top liners that were rated 3 to 5 in an open draft. Allowed them to not have the same need to fall.

 

[loki04]

Yep.

All that has happened is Collingwood pivoted, we were draft and youth heavy in 2012-15 whilst never bottoming out.

We then had a period where we traded out of the draft for more mature talent...obviously not managed well with salary cap fallout.

Now we are back in a more youth oriented phase. We need to draft well, we don't need to finish bottom four and get a top4 pick to draft well.

And we still need to ensure we have enough senior onfield leadership to support, develop and drive standards with our kids.

We were lucky as Beams landed Degoey at 5 and then FS Moore at 8 that is equivalent to "bottoming out".

 

[sr36]

They also added Lewis at 7.

You will find teams around them also had pp.

They also got Hodge at pick 1 not from bottoming but again went after a top line pick from the draft.

You guys also ignoring the fact it benefits all draft ranges across the board. Which allows you to add picks low 20s late 30s and so on...

There's obviously an advantage. But I think there's also a disadvantage due to player development in a losing team.

The bit that I'm ignoring though is that recent history is skewed by GWS and GC having so many of the picks in the years which should be impacting current success.

Bottoming out hasn't been a successful strategy recently. It might go back to success from bottoming out, like you're suggesting . I hope not though, as tanking sucks. So I'm going to barrack hard against it.

 

[loki04]

There's obviously an advantage. But I think there's also a disadvantage due to player development in a losing team.

The bit that I'm ignoring though is that recent history is skewed by GWS and GC having so many of the picks in the years which should be impacting current success.

Bottoming out hasn't been a successful strategy recently. It might go back to success from bottoming out, like you're suggesting . I hope not though, as tanking sucks. So I'm going to barrack hard against it.

Not tanking like you are stating.
More not rushing the list build play the kids and seniors still there let them develop without getting in your maynes or other players trying to make the "8" to soon. Not suggesting fielding an under 21 side. More similar to this season is what I hope we see next year except keep our pick obviously.

I think both of you look too much at what Melbourne and Carlton of the 00s did and not what other sides have done including us previously.

 

[sr36]

Not tanking like you are stating.
More not rushing the list build play the kids and seniors still there let them develop without getting in your maynes or other players trying to make the "8" to soon. Not suggesting fielding an under 21 side. More similar to this season is what I hope we see next year except keep our pick obviously.

I think both of you look too much at what Melbourne and Carlton of the 00s did and not what other sides have done including us previously.

No, I'm not looking at those years. I'm looking at recent history, where bottoming out hasn't won flags. But that could be skewed by the start up clubs draft concessions. It will be an interesting watch. I really hope bottoming out doesn't become the way to win flags again, because although what you're describing may not be officially tanking - it'll be a big incentive for teams not in contention to lose. Plus I'm not as flag or nothing as most are. I enjoy the years where we are competitive and want as many as them as possible - even if it means slightly less flags. I'd prefer 9 years of finals with no flags rather than 4 years of finals, 4 at the bottom and 1 flag.

 

[ipswichpies]

We were lucky as Beams landed Degoey at 5 and then FS Moore at 8 that is equivalent to "bottoming out".

The best part of Beams mark one was Crisp, what a fantastic deal if only we had stuck with that plus De Goey and Greenwood who has been good too.

 

[SquirrelGrrripp]

To be honest, those last few pages was a grind to read!

A fair few valid points and some astute observation was mired in a multitude of inane rambling and systematic diatribe.

Some smart operators on here, but to get to the modicum of adroit knowledge, it became exercise in perseverance…

Love the passion though! I will continue to read and educate myself where I can, but sometimes less is definitely more…


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[doppleganger]

We were lucky as Beams landed Degoey at 5 and then FS Moore at 8 that is equivalent to "bottoming out".

We won 11 games in 2014 and finished 9th.

How the feck is that bottoming out?

You don't need to "bottom out" to get access to a top player from the draft pool.

And you don't need a top5 draft pick to get a top player either.

You can get them thrown in as steak-knives in deals if you trade well, see Beams.

They also added Lewis at 7.

They also got Hodge at pick 1 not from bottoming but again went after a top line pick from the draft.

Yes, they didn't need to bottom out to get Hodge. They played in a PF in 2001, and then came away with Hodge, Mitchell, C.Brown and Ladson from the draft.

And pick 7 is one of your mediocre picks...that is what you end up with if you don't bottom out...and are stuck in no man's land from 6-12.

Post the first round it isn't the pick that is important, it is talent identification and development...strong clubs who don't turn themselves into development clubs have success there.

 

[jonmacTrag]

The best part of Beams mark one was Crisp, what a fantastic deal if only we had stuck with that plus De Goey and Greenwood who has been good too.

Beams may not have been the underlying cause of our cap issues but he was the flash point that sent us over the top.

 

[Rebuilder]

To be honest, those last few pages was a grind to read!

A fair few valid points and some astute observation was mired in a multitude of inane rambling and systematic diatribe.

Some smart operators on here, but to get to the modicum of adroit knowledge, it became exercise in perseverance…

Love the passion though! I will continue to read and educate myself where I can, but sometimes less is definitely more…

Are you drinking yet? it's almost noon and I've found it really helps.

 

[Quicky]

Of course they're helpful. But the advantage of getting pick 3, pick 21, pick 39 versus pick 10, pick 28, pick 46 is small. making slightly better draft selections, snagging a good one in the rookie draft or most significantly better player development smashes the advantage of finishing at the bottom. And playing in a better team - with the added confidence that brings, surrounded by better players, in bigger games with more on the line is likely to result in better player development and more than nullify the bottoming out advantage by itself.

I used pick 3, because that was the pick number where people used to say you were almost certain to get a gun. If you want to look at it more closely, drag out to pick 5 and exclude players taken from the last 2 drafts to take out teams who haven't began to climb yet from the big benefit you think they get.

I jsut went through them quickly. These top 5 selections are playing for finals teams based for the team who drafted them, based on the current ladder:

2018 Pick 5
Connor Rozee

2017
Noone

2016
McGraw
Tarranto
McGluggage

2015
Mills (Academy so not from bottoming out so I included pick 6
Oliver
Parish

2014
Petracca
Brayshaw

2013
Josh Kelly
Bont

2012
Whitfield

2011
Coniglio

2010
None

2009
None

2008
None

2007
None

I've crossed out GWS from the calculations, because they have had totally different access to what we will have if we bottom out.

From the other 7 finals teams there are 8 players:
Melbourne have 3
Ess 2
Bris 1
Port 1
Dogs have 1

Interestingly, not a single KPP amongst them. None of the current final 8 teams are currently benefitting from drafting a KPP really early.

Meanwhile - Carlton, Stkilda and Freo have multiple. Gold Coast about a million. In JDG, we've got just as many or more than 5 of the 7 relevant finalists.

2 of Melbourne's are awesome, so you can put them down as a team who really benefitted from bottoming out and getting early picks.
Dogs one is awesome, but he's only 1 player in a very deep team.
The other guys are very good players, but they're not really blokes who are going to carry the team on their back and get them straight up the ladder.

I think that assessment is kind of misleading. There are many key forwards playing finals/potentially playing that were taken pointy end.

From the top 8 key forwards: Jackson, Weideman, Cameron, Hawkins, Dixon, Georgiades, Ugle-Hagan, Naughton, Daniher, Franklin, McDonald, Hipwood, Hogan, Himmelberg, Cox, Reid were all top 20 picks. Most were top 10.

I appreciate some were academy/FS picks but it demonstrates the pick range you need to draft those guys. You either have early picks, spend a lot to trade em' in or get lucky with your academy (+ pay an early pick).

I reckon get an early pick, pick well and retain the player is the only real option if you want some control over getting a quality key forward.

 

[Rusty Beam]

There's a bit of truth there - not Trav though. He didn't have the pace to get separation like the really big goal kickers from that era. Buddy on the other hand would have broken the 150 goals a season record - multiple times.

Personally I think it would be the reverse scenario.

Even if Trav just played similar to what he did in his last 3-4 years with us, he would dominate in today’s game.

Unfortunately during that period the AFL really cracked down on contests of strengths and absolutely crucified him for it. Even just for holding his ground without pushing. He physically monstered blokes and with hindsight was paid a ridiculous amount of unwarranted frees against.

Thankfully that has changed which has helped blokes like Hawkins, Charlie Dixon etc.

One on one I don’t think I’ve seen a stronger player.

 

[sr36]

I think that assessment is kind of misleading. There are many key forwards playing finals/potentially playing that were taken pointy end.

From the top 8 key forwards: Jackson, Weideman, Cameron, Hawkins, Dixon, Georgiades, Ugle-Hagan, Naughton, Daniher, Franklin, McDonald, Hipwood, Hogan, Himmelberg, Cox, Reid were all top 20 picks. Most were top 10.

I appreciate some were academy/FS picks but it demonstrates the pick range you need to draft those guys. You either have early picks, spend a lot to trade em' in or get lucky with your academy (+ pay an early pick).

I reckon get an early pick, pick well and retain the player is the only real option if you want some control over getting a quality key forward.

Don't disagree. It was in the context of bottoming out and reaping the rewards from drafting the best kpg. So most of those blokes don't count as they're either not playing at the team who originally drafted them or they weren't taken by teams at the bottom.

 

[Jen2310]

Pendles? Sure not.

Collingwood has left champion captain Scott Pendlebury

10

Scott Pendlebury

Age

36

Ht

191cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

26.5

5star

K

13.2

5star

HB

13.3

5star

M

4.1

4star

T

4.9

5star

CL

4.9

5star

D

25.1

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

12.9

5star

M

3.4

3star

T

2.3

3star

CL

3.6

4star

D

12.4

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

4.8

4star

M

5.8

5star

T

2.6

4star

hanging on a new deal.
In a move which has raised eyebrows across the competition, the Magpies have made the call to hold off on re-signing the skipper beyond this season.

The Magpies have put a pause on all contract dealings as the club zeroes in on a new coach from a shortlist of Don Pyke, Brad Scott, Craig McRae

Craig Mcrae

Age

51

Ht

176cm

Wt

73kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.9

3star

K

9.0

3star

HB

3.9

3star

M

2.4

3star

T

1.9

4star

G

1.2

4star

No current season stats available

D

16.2

4star

K

10.6

4star

HB

5.6

4star

M

1.8

2star

T

1.2

3star

G

1.4

5star

, Michael Voss, Jaymie Graham

Jaymie Graham

Age

41

Ht

196cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.9

3star

K

7.8

3star

HB

4.1

3star

M

4.7

4star

T

1.2

3star

No current season stats available

D

8.0

2star

K

4.4

2star

HB

3.6

3star

M

2.4

3star

T

0.4

3star

and Robert Harvey.


Harvey cannot be ruled out as he winds up an impressive stint as interim coach but Collingwood has lost fitness boss Kevin White to North Melbourne for next season.

Collingwood has undertaken a list rebuild this season but is banking on the premise another club doesn’t swoop on Pendlebury, 33, with a Luke Hodge-style deal.

There were whispers from across the Nullarbor last year Fremantle coach Justin Longmuir

Justin Longmuir

Age

43

Ht

196cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

F/R

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.4

3star

K

6.9

3star

HB

4.5

3star

M

4.3

4star

T

1.4

3star

G

1.2

4star

No current season stats available

D

7.0

2star

K

3.6

2star

HB

3.4

3star

M

2.0

3star

T

0.6

3star

G

0.6

3star

was keen on the champion midfielder as a player – coach on a long-term deal.




Longmuir was tight with Pendlebury from their time at Collingwood and the Dockers may yet lose midfielder Adam Cerra to Carlton or Richmond.

Pendlebury has made clear he wants to coach after his glittering playing career ends, having been lauded by former coach Nathan Buckley as one of the sharpest minds in footy.

 

[AmericanMustard]

Pendles? Sure not.

It’s a genuine question worth pondering. I would never advocate it, I actually think he’s got at least 3 good years left. Some people are worth more sticking around. He also strikes me as someone who values being a one club player.

However, I believe it was spoken about a few pages back about his desire to take a haircut. If removing Pendles salary off the book due to his expectations to allow the signing of Moore/De Goey/Maynard as well as chase good young assets. It’s simply a good business decision to let him go and take his wage off the books.

The flip side is, the talk of trading Sidebottom/Howe etc can disappear, you need some experience to lead a young group.

 

[Rusty Beam]

Pendles? Sure not.

If he was the one who was absolutely keen on it to further his coaching aspirations, not to dissimilar to Sam Mitchell, I could see it happening.

That would make for ridiculously old midfield for Freo though, with Mundy also going around.

Personally I’d rather keep him at our club to mentor our young kids for another year or two though.