Page 278 of 452 FirstFirst ... 178228268274275276277278279280281282288328378 ... LastLast
Results 3,325 to 3,336 of 5424

Thread: 2020 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

  1. #3325
    I have a feeling that Naismith will retire as he is so injury prone and seriously needs to think about his own future post football without pain. So one more spot in senior list

  2. #3326
    Reefer Madness
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    in a yellow submarine
    Posts
    4,362
    Blog Entries
    1
    One of the issues we will have is all the free agency compensation picks diluting the value of what we have.

    Just on today, what were our latter two picks in the 50s have dropped in value by 80 points.

    And there will be more to come, plus some effects on what was pick 22.

    There’s where we started in closing the gap needing for Campbell and Gulden, and there is where we end up.

    I know there are ways to be creative in closing the gap, but it’ll be a bigger gap than we started with.

  3. #3327
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    We have too many tall defenders but not enough tall forwards... wonder if any of them could do it?

    DGB did play forward recently and went OK. He’s quick too.
    The number of high draft pick KPF failures has been well documented, so any KPF pick is a big risk, but the reward is big if the player goes on to fulfill his potential. To use pick 3 on a key defender with the hope he can make it as a key forward is far too big a risk.

    There are lots of key forwards who successfully move to the back line, but not many who go the other way.

    I would like to see if we could trade pick 3 for a 2021 1st rounder (probably above a projected pick 7), plus a high 2nd rounder this year. Some other swaps will make up any value points gap. This would cover bids on the academy boys and give us 2 first rounders next year. We would still have our full complement of 2nd, 3rd and 4th round 2021 picks we could use to get a ruckman this year. Two quality midfielders plus a ruckman would be a good outcome for us this year.

  4. #3328
    I’ve been pretty confident that we will be ok with our deficit and pick 3 but after today I am becoming more nervous.

    Daniher and Williams both qualifying for Band 1 compo does not auger well for us regarding Crouch. I never thought the Crows would get 2 but they now know what needs to be done and I’ll think they will do it. That will push the first round out to 22 picks.

    After the Bulldogs, Swans, Port, and Collingwood match bids in this round, it is now likely that the second round won’t begin until pick 27!!! If GWS don’t match the bid for Cameron then it could be 28. It would take a miracle for Gulden to last that long and so even though he may get bid on at pick 26, he will be considered a first rounder and the deficit will come off our first rounder next year. This is a massive difference than coming off our second round.

  5. #3329
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    6,098
    Compo picks and NGA's are stuffing the draft as an equalisation measure.

    Bound to be kick back after the debacle that's developing. Compo picks that a clearly above what a player is worth of the open market are a joke. Band 1 compo should be no higher than pick 11, that's the first pick after the non finalists have had their first rounder

    NGA's we know are a joke, how's the former SANFL player (Port Magpies) who was working in Egypt, with his Australian wife, for 12 months where his son was born, will be an NGA for the Crows! Or indigenous players who have been kicking a footy since they could walk and have come all the way through junior programs suddenly become an NGA pick 1

    The system is stuffed. We are just lucky to have (now) pick 4 plus Campbell and Gulden amongst this mess of a draft. I feel for LOLNorf being battered with the single digit compo picks being added, that's a club who doesn't deserve the dilution happening

  6. #3330
    Yep the FA compo is a joke. Either scrap it, or it comes from the club ( one way or another ) that is poaching the player. It’s still far less than the actual trade value in most cases.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #3331
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Melbourne_Blood View Post
    Yep the FA compo is a joke. Either scrap it, or it comes from the club ( one way or another ) that is poaching the player. It’s still far less than the actual trade value in most cases.
    What the AFL should do is use the same system to value the FA player that was used when the value points system was created. Then, whatever the points come out to has to be paid by the acquiring club. There would be a formula that translates the points to actual picks.

    We should take our academy boys and go home. Move pick 3 (4 or 5) to the 2021 draft. This draft is way too compromised. With the kind of salaries being paid for recruited players, there are going to be more clubs like Collingwood and GWS that will have to offload players in a TPP dump in the coming years. It could be a good strategy to build a powerful hand to move on a player that will help the club once we are challenging for a premiership again.

    Once the AFL take the candy away from the Gold Coast, they are going to be such a bad place from a TPP standpoint. They will have years of fire sales to get back to normal. Once GC make the finals, the Melbourne clubs will start crying and force the AFL to go back to the system where GC become a development zone for Victoria.

  8. #3332
    Aut vincere aut mori Thunder Shaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    My secret laboratory in the suburbs of Melbourne
    Posts
    3,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Melbourne_Blood View Post
    Yep the FA compo is a joke. Either scrap it, or it comes from the club ( one way or another ) that is poaching the player. It’s still far less than the actual trade value in most cases.
    As it stands, Geelong could get two free agents, and holds THREE first round picks that don't even get touched. How on earth is that fair, especially when Sydney was penalised for playing by the same rules by recruiting Tippett and Franklin in consecutive years with a trading ban?

    IMO, this serious anomaly can be fixed by applying 80% of the value of the FA compensation as a draft points deficit against the club receiving the player. Free agents can still swap clubs but it would now come with a fair price.

    If Geelong paid the 80% price, GWS' pick 10 (1395 points) and Hawthorn's pick 45 (347 points) would be applied to Geelong as a points deficit totalling 1393.6 points. That would wipe out Geelong's pick 13 (1212 points) and the remaining 181.6 points would come off Geelong's pick 15 which would slide down to pick 19.

    The key here is removing Geelong's first pick (13). All following picks are bumped up one spot, and the four picks between pick 15 and pick 19 are bumped up two spots.
    "Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi final

  9. #3333
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    The number of high draft pick KPF failures has been well documented, so any KPF pick is a big risk, but the reward is big if the player goes on to fulfill his potential. To use pick 3 on a key defender with the hope he can make it as a key forward is far too big a risk.

    There are lots of key forwards who successfully move to the back line, but not many who go the other way.

    I would like to see if we could trade pick 3 for a 2021 1st rounder (probably above a projected pick 7), plus a high 2nd rounder this year. Some other swaps will make up any value points gap. This would cover bids on the academy boys and give us 2 first rounders next year. We would still have our full complement of 2nd, 3rd and 4th round 2021 picks we could use to get a ruckman this year. Two quality midfielders plus a ruckman would be a good outcome for us this year.
    I agree drafting a KPF is risky and requires patience, but the alternative is having to pay through the nose for one. What's more likely to deliver success: Jesse Hogan, Ben Brown, a McDonald, Paddy McCartin, Josh Schache, Tom McCartin ... anyone else on our list or pick 3.

    The situation with ruckmen is also challenging as they take so long to develop no one wants to recruit them. But everyone wants multiple ready to play ruckmen. If we draft one, we'll be waiting 3 years minimum before that investment bears fruit. I can see the appeal of a Coleman-Jones or a Hayes.

    BTW Cal Twomey on AFL exchange suggests that the Aliir - Port situation may be far from over.

  10. #3334
    Pick 7 compo for JD. It’s substantial for a guy that’s played 15 games in 3 years ..


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #3335
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder Shaker View Post
    As it stands, Geelong could get two free agents, and holds THREE first round picks that don't even get touched. How on earth is that fair, especially when Sydney was penalised for playing by the same rules by recruiting Tippett and Franklin in consecutive years with a trading ban?

    IMO, this serious anomaly can be fixed by applying 80% of the value of the FA compensation as a draft points deficit against the club receiving the player. Free agents can still swap clubs but it would now come with a fair price.

    If Geelong paid the 80% price, GWS' pick 10 (1395 points) and Hawthorn's pick 45 (347 points) would be applied to Geelong as a points deficit totalling 1393.6 points. That would wipe out Geelong's pick 13 (1212 points) and the remaining 181.6 points would come off Geelong's pick 15 which would slide down to pick 19.

    The key here is removing Geelong's first pick (13). All following picks are bumped up one spot, and the four picks between pick 15 and pick 19 are bumped up two spots.
    I think that’s an excellent suggestion and hopefully something like that gets looked at. This current system can’t go on, for exactly the reasons you stated. You either take all your picks in the draft , take some of them and trade some for players , or get rid of all of them and go hard on trades. Surely you can’t have your cake and eat it too like the Geelong scenario.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #3336
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    I agree drafting a KPF is risky and requires patience, but the alternative is having to pay through the nose for one. What's more likely to deliver success: Jesse Hogan, Ben Brown, a McDonald, Paddy McCartin, Josh Schache, Tom McCartin ... anyone else on our list or pick 3.
    If we could get any of JUH, Logan McDonald or Thilthorpe, I would go with pick 3, but most draft pundits think they will be gone by our 1st pick. So I would have to say that some of the players on your list would be more likely to deliver success.

    There is a another road to success that doesn't necessarily require a dominant key forward. We are building a team with good speed and top shelf kicking skills. Sort of like a quick version of Hawthorn, 2012 - 2015 model. We should be able to produce a high scoring team with smaller, quick and strong marking forwards. We will still have McCartin and Blakey for height combined with speed and marking skills. McCartin, Blakey, Heeney, Papley, Dawson and Hayward could be a very damaging forward line if we have the midfielders to deliver the ball accurately inside 50.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO