Trade target discussion (merged thread)

[707]

Liz, the two late 20s picks are worth more points than pick 15 so we use those two and our second pick 35ish for Mills. I'm assuming Dunks either won't nominate or we use our third and anything we get for Bird who may fly the nest.

If Dunks does nominate and slips into the second round, which is from pick 20, then if we don't have enough points our second rounder next year gets pushed back not our first. That follows more recent ruling by the VFL.

[Snork]

If anything, I think today has once again confirmed our priority should be to aggressively pursue a number of skillful ball users by foot, ie Yarran, with whatever draft pick we receive for Jetta, maybe even Suckling who was mooted to be heading to the lions? Leuenberger is no Nic Nat so not sure that he will provide any more value than what we already have by way of ruck stocks. Also, is it just me or did anyone notice the way the Dawks carved up WC at the stoppages by having free men behind the stoppage, just like against us in last years GF? What is wrong with actually playing one on one as this is the only way they have beaten in a GF before, see our tackling pressure in 2012? Giving them time and space by way of free men is just asking for trouble!

[Ludwig]

If Dunks does nominate and slips into the second round, which is from pick 20, then if we don't have enough points our second rounder next year gets pushed back not our first. That follows more recent ruling by the VFL.

That's good to know. I didn't see that ruling.

It could make sense for us to get a 1st round pick in 2016 for Jetta as there doesn't look to be a first rounder coming through our academy next year, and it would be nice to have 2 1st round picks next year. It may also come in handy it we need to bring in a good player to fill a hole in our list.

If we could trade Bird out and Talia in for an even swap (maybe giving the Bulldogs the draft pick we get for Bird) I think it will help shore up one positional weakness. It seems that we may have to carry Pyke and Derickx on our list next year because they're under contract, but can't see them playing much senior footy. At least it will be easy to find a couple of players to delist next year. I'm not too keen on getting another ruckman, but the only one worth considering is Leuenberger, since he comes a FA and then just hope for the best as far as injury is concerned. Maybe it pays for us to get our own MRI machine.

[707]

Swans pick 14 - 1161 pts, Freo pick 16 - 1067 pts, WCE pick 17 - 1025 pts

Pick 28 - 677 pts, Pick 29 - 653 pts total 1330 pts will buy you pick 7 with discount.

With a number of teams needing another first rounder to get the big name deals done, I reckon this type of two for one trade is a no brainer. The significant extra points is the difference between getting Dunkley or not or losing draft position next year or not.

The very shallow draft this year means higher picks are so much more valuable and picks 30+ are the equivalent of 50+ in a good draft. Thank goodness for the academies adding depth and quality! Eddie, Eddie??????

[Mug Punter]

That's good to know. I didn't see that ruling.

It could make sense for us to get a 1st round pick in 2016 for Jetta as there doesn't look to be a first rounder coming through our academy next year, and it would be nice to have 2 1st round picks next year. It may also come in handy it we need to bring in a good player to fill a hole in our list.

If we could trade Bird out and Talia in for an even swap (maybe giving the Bulldogs the draft pick we get for Bird) I think it will help shore up one positional weakness. It seems that we may have to carry Pyke and Derickx on our list next year because they're under contract, but can't see them playing much senior footy. At least it will be easy to find a couple of players to delist next year. I'm not too keen on getting another ruckman, but the only one worth considering is Leuenberger, since he comes a FA and then just hope for the best as far as injury is concerned. Maybe it pays for us to get our own MRI machine.

Not getting a Ruckman in next year effectively says to me that the club has written off 2016 in terms of winning a flag because I just don't think we can win the big games with a Mike Pyke next year.

From a points perspective of we want Mills and Dunks this year then we'll need the Jetta points this year.

I wouldn't have thought Bird to doggies would work but perhaps they would trade him for what another club pays us for Bird (an early third rounder I'd say).

My feeling is we will definitely try and get a ruckman in but are by no means certain to get the deal done. Nankervis leaves me lukewarm at best, Naismith seems perpetually crocked and Tommy D is average at best. It really is a worry

[Ludwig]

Not getting a Ruckman in next year effectively says to me that the club has written off 2016 in terms of winning a flag because I just don't think we can win the big games with a Mike Pyke next year.

From a points perspective of we want Mills and Dunks this year then we'll need the Jetta points this year. 707 made the point that we can use post 1st rounders in 2016 to make up any deficit.

I wouldn't have thought Bird to doggies would work but perhaps they would trade him for what another club pays us for Bird (an early third rounder I'd say). That's what I said.

My feeling is we will definitely try and get a ruckman in but are by no means certain to get the deal done. Nankervis leaves me lukewarm at best, Naismith seems perpetually crocked and Tommy D is average at best. It really is a worry

It's only a worry if you think ruckmen are useful. In the GF, the WC ruckmen were good for nothing, even though they got first hands on the ball. They made zero contribution around the ground. And Natanui is rated the 2nd best ruckman in league. I think the impact of a good ruckman can be nullified by smart stoppage tactics. Goldstein and Jacobs are valuable because they are excellent tap ruckmen and contribute around the ground as well, but those kind of ruckmen are few and far between.

My strategy for next year would be to play Naismith if he's fit and see how he goes. The best combo with our list is to play Tippett and Reid in roughly a 60-40 time split and use a lot of 3rd man up outside the centre bounces. I would rather play an extra midfielder than have an extra ruckman in the side. A tall forward combo of Buddy and Reid or Tippett from the centre bounces is plenty of tall forward fire power, because Buddy demands so much of the ball.

[Velour&Ruffles]

[QUOTE=barry;684583]In 2005 we had a tall skinny CHB with poor decision making and he went on to be a finals specialist for 10 years.

LRT.

- - - Updated - - -

One of the silliest comparisons I have ever heard. Someone with no football heart vs someone who was nothing but football heart. The difference speaks for itself. Watts will never be even a pale shadow of LRT.

[Scottee]

It's only a worry if you think ruckmen are useful. In the GF, the WC ruckmen were good for nothing, even though they got first hands on the ball. They made zero contribution around the ground. And Natanui is rated the 2nd best ruckman in league. I think the impact of a good ruckman can be nullified by smart stoppage tactics. Goldstein and Jacobs are valuable because they are excellent tap ruckmen and contribute around the ground as well, but those kind of ruckmen are few and far between.

My strategy for next year would be to play Naismith if he's fit and see how he goes. The best combo with our list is to play Tippett and Reid in roughly a 60-40 time split and use a lot of 3rd man up outside the centre bounces. I would rather play an extra midfielder than have an extra ruckman in the side. A tall forward combo of Buddy and Reid or Tippett from the centre bounces is plenty of tall forward fire power, because Buddy demands so much of the ball.

That's a pretty sound strategy given our awesome midfield stocks.

Another idea would be to go with our rather unrated rucks as needed. Rotate for form and fitness, save Pyke for the finals like Brisbane did with Clark Keating. Could use a similar strategy for Luey.

That said, as a former ruckmen I really rate Naismith and think he will play a role up forward as well as in the ruck now that he finally seems to have stopped growing.

[Faunac8]

[QUOTE=Velour&Ruffles;684678]

In 2005 we had a tall skinny CHB with poor decision making and he went on to be a finals specialist for 10 years.

LRT.

- - - Updated - - -

One of the silliest comparisons I have ever heard. Someone with no football heart vs someone who was nothing but football heart. The difference speaks for itself. Watts will NEVER? be even a pale shadow of LRT.

Never is a big word. The often heard expression "never say never " is often heard for a reason.

[Velour&Ruffles]

[QUOTE=Faunac8;684684][QUOTE=Velour&Ruffles;684678]

In 2005 we had a tall skinny CHB with poor decision making and he went on to be a finals specialist for 10 years.

LRT.

- - - Updated - - -

One of the silliest comparisons I have ever heard. Someone with no football heart vs someone who was nothing but football heart. The difference speaks for itself. Watts will NEVER? be even a pale shadow of LRT.[/QUOTE

Never is a big word. The often heard expression "never say never " is often heard for a reason.

I'll take your "never say never" and raise you a "leopard doesn't change its spots". There are hackneyed old aphorisms for every situation. Players with seven seasons and 115 games under their belt don't suddenly grow a heart.

[barry]

Free agency is a rort. Two teams could conspire to use it to get draft picks .
Eg. Hawthorn and sydney decide to swap two similar players . Roughy and tippet . Both are offered 1 year deals . Both teams recurve compo picks . Following year they swap back . Both teams recurve compo picks . After two years the lists are the same bit both teams have recorded two extra first round picks.

[Scottee]

Free agency is a rort. Two teams could conspire to use it to get draft picks .
Eg. Hawthorn and sydney decide to swap two similar players . Roughy and tippet . Both are offered 1 year deals . Both teams recurve compo picks . Following year they swap back . Both teams recurve compo picks . After two years the lists are the same bit both teams have recorded two extra first round picks.

Wow! Could be done theoretically but I would reckon the VFL "unwritten rulebook" would be activated with vigour.

[liz]

Free agency is a rort. Two teams could conspire to use it to get draft picks .
Eg. Hawthorn and sydney decide to swap two similar players . Roughy and tippet . Both are offered 1 year deals . Both teams recurve compo picks . Following year they swap back . Both teams recurve compo picks . After two years the lists are the same bit both teams have recorded two extra first round picks.

Except that free agency compensation picks don't work that way. You only receive compensation for your net free agency position. If you lose someone but also pick someone up, you don't get a compensation pick (or get a lower one, depending on the value of players lost/recruited). In your scenario, one player would need to be traded in each pair so only one club each year could pick up a compensation pick.

There is certainly scope for manipulation - see what happened with Dal Santo from the Saints to the Kangaroos, when it was questionable whether Dal Santo was really out of contract.

I think the picks should be eliminated. But the competition has the mindset that when they draft a player, they have some rights over him for a long period of time. Thus, if he leaves, they automatically deserve something in return. Yet clubs have lost players to the PSD for years and never got compensation. If you get into a mindset that you only have rights over the player for the first seven years, and then your "lease expires" (but you are in the front line to renegotiate an extension), it sits far better with the concept of free agency.

[Untamed Snark]

Except that free agency compensation picks don't work that way. You only receive compensation for your net free agency position. If you lose someone but also pick someone up, you don't get a compensation pick (or get a lower one, depending on the value of players lost/recruited). In your scenario, one player would need to be traded in each pair so only one club each year could pick up a compensation pick.

There is certainly scope for manipulation - see what happened with Dal Santo from the Saints to the Kangaroos, when it was questionable whether Dal Santo was really out of contract.

I think the picks should be eliminated. But the competition has the mindset that when they draft a player, they have some rights over him for a long period of time. Thus, if he leaves, they automatically deserve something in return. Yet clubs have lost players to the PSD for years and never got compensation. If you get into a mindset that you only have rights over the player for the first seven years, and then your "lease expires" (but you are in the front line to renegotiate an extension), it sits far better with the concept of free agency.

That makes entirely too much sense to be applied!

[RogueSwan]

I agree, compensation picks should never have been introduced. It goes against the whole ideal of Free Agency. If, and out is a massive if, the AFL were strong leaders they would scrap the compo pick after this years trading. Isn't the salary cap relief supposed to be compensation enough?
As far as rucks go, we need the early 2000's version of Goodes. Is this something Towers could do our would he be overpowered too easily.