Page 244 of 325 FirstFirst ... 144194234240241242243244245246247248254294 ... LastLast
Results 2,917 to 2,928 of 3893

Thread: 2023 List Management

  1. #2917
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,324
    Quote Originally Posted by dejavoodoo44 View Post
    This is a snapshot of the draft combine results. Cleary managed 5th place in the 2km time trial.

    West Australian bolter blitzes draft combine - Aussie Rules Rookie Me Central

    The guy that they feature, Zane Zakostelsky, is somebody who could be on our radar, if we're looking for a KPD and miss out on O'Connor and Murphy. He's a 196cm West Australian basketball convert, who reportedly rapidly improved as the season progressed. And his numbers are probably a little bit more impressive, when you consider that he was the youngest player at the combine.
    I'm jumping on the ZZ Top bandwagon. I love having players whose name no one can spell. His combine was impressive. So was Cleary.


    It's too hard and probably a time waster to try to figure out trade details just yet. There are too many permutations and so much yet to play out.

    If we can't trade up to get a crack at O'Sullivan in the draft, I wouldn't mind trading down and using the point gain for another purpose, for which I won't conjecture just yet. Too many permutations.

  2. #2918
    Aut vincere aut mori Thunder Shaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    My secret laboratory in the suburbs of Melbourne
    Posts
    3,890
    AFL website is stating that Collingwood and Melbourne both want Sydney's pick 25.

    Inside Trading: Battle for Swans' pick, Saint set to stay, North's draft call (afl.com.au)
    "Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi final

  3. #2919
    Captain of the Side Captain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Northern Beaches
    Posts
    3,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder Shaker View Post
    AFL website is stating that Collingwood and Melbourne both want Sydney's pick 25.

    Inside Trading: Battle for Swans' pick, Saint set to stay, North's draft call (afl.com.au)
    Melbourne are a joke if they are wanting that. Was less than they gave Collingwood when they actually wanted Grundy.

    Collingwood asking for 25 is probably more realistic. They don't want to lose Adams and will play hardball.

  4. #2920
    Normal early trade period antics.
    Melbournes deal is all about how much, if any they will continue to pay and we are asking the Pies for a contracted Vice Captain, no one here would take Pick 30 for Parker

  5. #2921
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,499
    I'm not convinced that Collingwood aren't entirely fine with Adams leaving. If they were determined to keep him they'd pretend to negotiate by asking for our pick 11 (or wherever it currently sits). He's supposedly on a large contract next year - the result of some back-ending. If he's agreed to come to us on a three year deal I imagine the effect is to smooth that out over a longer period. But if he stays, Collingwood will have to pick up his full tab next year and then risk losing him, probably for no compensation given his age, as an unrestricted free agent.

    They're in a premiership window, so do they think that Adams will make it more likely for them next year? Not sure, but they didn't play him much in the midfield this year and have Mitchell. I suspect they'd been chatting up Schultz for a while, maybe with a view to bringing him in as a free agent next year. But once Adams asked to be traded, they maybe convinced Schultz to bring his move forward a year. He'll slot into the half-forward pressure role that Adams has been partly playing this year. And now that Schultz has gone public, he/they won't want to backtrack unless it becomes clear that Freo aren't going to let Schultz go this year.

    There's an awful lot of posturing they go through (all the clubs) before they finally land on the sensible position that was obvious from the start.

  6. #2922
    Veterans List dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    7,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    I'm jumping on the ZZ Top bandwagon. I love having players whose name no one can spell. His combine was impressive. So was Cleary.


    It's too hard and probably a time waster to try to figure out trade details just yet. There are too many permutations and so much yet to play out.

    If we can't trade up to get a crack at O'Sullivan in the draft, I wouldn't mind trading down and using the point gain for another purpose, for which I won't conjecture just yet. Too many permutations.
    Yes, ZZ's a top athlete. He's got legs and he knows how to use them.

  7. #2923
    Reefer Madness
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    in a yellow submarine
    Posts
    4,548
    Blog Entries
    1
    I think the thing with Collingwood is they need Adams to go for the pick they want from us as part of getting Schultz out of Freo (including possibly cap space).

    I'd be prepared to give them 25 (knowing it's going to drift back to around 30 anyway), if there's then something that is swapped around at the back end to either help us land Grundy. Ie: we also swap our pick 46 with the Pies 38, and we're more comfortably simply shipping 33 to the Dees for Grundy. We've still kept pick (now) 12 untouched, and have a bit to fiddle round with our residual picks to cover Cleary and one of Kinnear's late draft specials.

    There was a bit of me inclined to get 25 when it was ranked higher (before all the crap compo picks pushed it down) and bundle with then pick 11 and offer to the Cats. But given the diminishing value of those picks, not sure they'd bite and not sure it'd get us a shot at O'Sullivan or Murphy anyway. The draft is so absurdly compromised this year it's a crap shoot and finding a late gem will be the art.
    'Delicious' is a fun word to say

  8. #2924
    Aut vincere aut mori Thunder Shaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    My secret laboratory in the suburbs of Melbourne
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain View Post
    Melbourne are a joke if they are wanting that. Was less than they gave Collingwood when they actually wanted Grundy.

    Collingwood asking for 25 is probably more realistic. They don't want to lose Adams and will play hardball.
    On Grundy and Adams: Both trades may be held up a bit until the Swans know what they will get for Stephens.

    I suspect both trades also involve who pays for both players' salaries. Collingwood and Melbourne must be dreaming fever dreams if they want an early second-round pick for the players and the Swans are paying the salaries as well.
    "Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi final

  9. #2925
    Aut vincere aut mori Thunder Shaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    My secret laboratory in the suburbs of Melbourne
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by rb4x View Post
    I do not agree with any compensation being given to clubs when the lose a free agent. In the Mackay case the compensation is being unfairly born by all the other seventeen clubs who all move down a pick. A much greater impact on weaker clubs like Hawthorn who drop from pick 3 to pick 4 than Collingwood who drop from pick 18 to 19 and so on through all subsequent rounds. The whole compensation issue is unfair and requires the weaker clubs who received the higher picks to do the heavy lifting. Why should North or any club receive compensation for free agency. They have received their value from the player who has served his time and has earned the right to go where he might choose.

    The Mackay case just exposes how ludicrous the system is when North get a pick 3 when if they traded Mackay they would likely not get better than a second round pick.
    I posted some time ago on free agency compensation, where I made similar criticisms, such as the uninvolved clubs being pushed down in the draft.

    I suggested two possible fixes:
    1. The destination club pays draft points for the player to fund the compensation pick at a 20% discount.
    2. Get rid of the compensation picks. The player enters the draft. When they are called, the destination club can choose to match the bid, and pay draft points for the player at a 20% discount. If the destination club chooses not to match the bid, the player stays with their original club.

    Both methods have flaws, but so does the free agency system as currently implemented.
    "Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi final

  10. #2926
    Veterans List dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    7,597
    Quote Originally Posted by rb4x View Post
    I do not agree with any compensation being given to clubs when the lose a free agent. In the Mackay case the compensation is being unfairly born by all the other seventeen clubs who all move down a pick. A much greater impact on weaker clubs like Hawthorn who drop from pick 3 to pick 4 than Collingwood who drop from pick 18 to 19 and so on through all subsequent rounds. The whole compensation issue is unfair and requires the weaker clubs who received the higher picks to do the heavy lifting. Why should North or any club receive compensation for free agency. They have received their value from the player who has served his time and has earned the right to go where he might choose.

    The Mackay case just exposes how ludicrous the system is when North get a pick 3 when if they traded Mackay they would likely not get better than a second round pick.
    Tend to agree. Although I suppose there's a couple of arguments for compensation. Firstly, players are more likely to be attracted to traditionally powerful clubs, so maybe it helps the weaker clubs that lose those players? Also, NSW and Queensland might be more affected by the go home factor, so it possibly lessens the blow of losing players? Whether it plays out like that in the real world, I don't know? I mean, I suspect that the go home factor is more likely to strike 2 or 3 years into a contract, rather than after 8 years at a club.

    And as you say, what is North actually being compensated for? They drafted him with pick 21 in 2015, so they've had a reasonable return on that pick. And I'm not sure how missing out on the playing time between restricted free agent and unrestricted free agent, equates to a pick 3 for North, when he was originally drafted with pick 21? Like, it's not as if he's set the AFL world on fire. During that time, he's played 71 games for 8 wins, averaged just over 10 possessions a game, has not made an All Australian team, has not placed in North's B & F and hasn't even collected a Brownlow vote.

    There's also the suspicion that the compensation rules are being manipulated, with clubs heavily front ending contracts, in order to trigger higher compensation. There's actually been a bit of chatter, that North might be willing to trade that pick 3 to Essendon. Which if true, seems like something that the AFL probably should nip in the bud.

  11. #2927
    Quote Originally Posted by dejavoodoo44 View Post
    Yes, ZZ's a top athlete. He's got legs and he knows how to use them.
    ZZ top are pretty good on guitars too!😊

  12. #2928
    Ego alta, ergo ictus Ruck'n'Roll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Over here!
    Posts
    3,886
    Quote Originally Posted by dejavoodoo44 View Post
    Yes, ZZ's a top athlete. He's got legs and he knows how to use them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Roadrunner View Post
    ZZ top are pretty good on guitars too!😊
    Looks good in his highlights, and off-field, he's a sharp dressed man.
    Loose translation from the Latin is - I am tall, so I hit out.

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