 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Cam 
Nick's BB Member #166
Joined: 10 May 2002
Location: Springvale
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
yeah you are right, 14 does ring a bell
_________________
Get back on top. |
|
|
|
 |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Cam wrote: | | yeah you are right, 14 does ring a bell |
It rings more bells than Wood ever did.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
mooretreloar
Joined: 21 Sep 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I think he will get traded, but find it interesting that unlike O'Meara, Hibberd, Cloke etc, he hasn't come out and requested a trade and/or nominated a destination. Nor has Marley or Frost, who are 2 others supposedly wanting trade.
Witt's price will be dependent on his destination. Using Gold Coast as an example, they have Tom Nicholls as their current ruckman, who is quite young, and he does a reasonable job. Not much difference between him and Witts, so unlikely to pay more than a 2nd round pick. Compare this to say Brisbane that have Stefan Martin, a good follower, but not a great tap ruckman. He is also towards the end of his career, so Brisbane might be happy to give up a 1st round pick. They only have pick 2 at the minute, which is obviously too high, but if they trade say Pearce Hanley, they will get a later 1st round pick to use for Witts. |
|
|
|
|
Collingwood Crackerjack
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Location: Canberra
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| jdpie1970 wrote: | | Cam Wood was for pick 14 in 2007 draft (Melbourne ended up getting Jack Grimes with it - they must have received the pick from Brisbane ?) |
You see, this is one thing I never get about the old 'Mick didn't do sh*t until the handover, then he traded in Ball and Jolly' argument; Wood was the best young ruck prospect available after a preim we would have won with a good ruck...sure he didn't work out, but it puts a lie to the claim Mick wasn't at least a little proactive before the handover arrangement was reached
_________________
"The last thing he expected WAS THE FIRST THING HE GOT!!!!!"
© Collingwood Crackerjack, 1992 |
|
|
|
|
Presti35 
Dick Lee for Legend Status
Joined: 05 Oct 2001
Location: London, England
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| jdpie1970 wrote: | | Cam Wood was for pick 14 in 2007 draft (Melbourne ended up getting Jack Grimes with it - they must have received the pick from Brisbane ?) |
So we should go for Jack Grimes. I see what you're saying. 
_________________
A Goal Saved Is 2 Goals Earned! |
|
|
|
|
Damien 
Me Noah & Flynn @ the G
Joined: 21 Jan 1999
Location: Croydon Vic
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| mooretreloar wrote: | I think he will get traded, but find it interesting that unlike O'Meara, Hibberd, Cloke etc, he hasn't come out and requested a trade and/or nominated a destination. Nor has Marley or Frost, who are 2 others supposedly wanting trade.
Witt's price will be dependent on his destination. Using Gold Coast as an example, they have Tom Nicholls as their current ruckman, who is quite young, and he does a reasonable job. Not much difference between him and Witts, so unlikely to pay more than a 2nd round pick. Compare this to say Brisbane that have Stefan Martin, a good follower, but not a great tap ruckman. He is also towards the end of his career, so Brisbane might be happy to give up a 1st round pick. They only have pick 2 at the minute, which is obviously too high, but if they trade say Pearce Hanley, they will get a later 1st round pick to use for Witts. |
A first rounder for Wittsy?
Sorry mate you are dreaming.
A late second round at best.
_________________
'Collingwood are the Bradmans of Football'
The Herald - 1930 |
|
|
|
|
mooretreloar
Joined: 21 Sep 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Damien wrote: | | mooretreloar wrote: | I think he will get traded, but find it interesting that unlike O'Meara, Hibberd, Cloke etc, he hasn't come out and requested a trade and/or nominated a destination. Nor has Marley or Frost, who are 2 others supposedly wanting trade.
Witt's price will be dependent on his destination. Using Gold Coast as an example, they have Tom Nicholls as their current ruckman, who is quite young, and he does a reasonable job. Not much difference between him and Witts, so unlikely to pay more than a 2nd round pick. Compare this to say Brisbane that have Stefan Martin, a good follower, but not a great tap ruckman. He is also towards the end of his career, so Brisbane might be happy to give up a 1st round pick. They only have pick 2 at the minute, which is obviously too high, but if they trade say Pearce Hanley, they will get a later 1st round pick to use for Witts. |
A first rounder for Wittsy?
Sorry mate you are dreaming.
A late second round at best. |
I agree with you. I was just making the point, as other posters in the thread have, that his value is in the eye of the suitor and if someone is desperate for a ruckman eg Brisbane, they may be willing to pay overs. |
|
|
|
|
mooretreloar
Joined: 21 Sep 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Damien wrote: | | mooretreloar wrote: | I think he will get traded, but find it interesting that unlike O'Meara, Hibberd, Cloke etc, he hasn't come out and requested a trade and/or nominated a destination. Nor has Marley or Frost, who are 2 others supposedly wanting trade.
Witt's price will be dependent on his destination. Using Gold Coast as an example, they have Tom Nicholls as their current ruckman, who is quite young, and he does a reasonable job. Not much difference between him and Witts, so unlikely to pay more than a 2nd round pick. Compare this to say Brisbane that have Stefan Martin, a good follower, but not a great tap ruckman. He is also towards the end of his career, so Brisbane might be happy to give up a 1st round pick. They only have pick 2 at the minute, which is obviously too high, but if they trade say Pearce Hanley, they will get a later 1st round pick to use for Witts. |
A first rounder for Wittsy?
Sorry mate you are dreaming.
A late second round at best. |
I agree with you. I was just making the point, as other posters in the thread have, that his value is in the eye of the suitor and if someone is desperate for a ruckman eg Brisbane, they may be willing to pay overs. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Collingwood Crackerjack wrote: | | jdpie1970 wrote: | | Cam Wood was for pick 14 in 2007 draft (Melbourne ended up getting Jack Grimes with it - they must have received the pick from Brisbane ?) |
You see, this is one thing I never get about the old 'Mick didn't do sh*t until the handover, then he traded in Ball and Jolly' argument; Wood was the best young ruck prospect available after a preim we would have won with a good ruck...sure he didn't work out, but it puts a lie to the claim Mick wasn't at least a little proactive before the handover arrangement was reached |
In 2007 we also saw:
Steven King traded to St Kilda for pick 90
Ben Hudson (& pick 43) traded to the Doggies for 30 & 38
Matthew Lobbe drafted at pick 16
Dawson Simpson drafted to the Cats at 34
Stefan Martin taken by the Dees at pick 3 in the PSD
Tom Bellchambers taken by the Bumbers at pick 8 in the PSD
Jake Spencer taken by the Dees at pick 35 in the RD
Shane Mumford taken by the Cats at pick 57 in the RD
There were other options.
Retaining pick 14 could have allowed us to grab Robbie Tarrant (15), Harry Taylor (17), Alex Rance (18 ), Jack Steven (42), Easton Wood (43), Cale Hooker (54). A few of those we could have also taken instead of John McCarthy at 31 or Toby Thoolen at 47.
Swings and roundabouts really but it's why I'd always prefer to go to the draft. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^Why? You have more chance of getting a draft pick wrong than a trade (exposed form). The Wood deal was the wrong one to make, but that doesn't mean going to the draft should be preferred.
We needed a ruck who was ready to help as soon as possible. Going to the draft was not really an option. We rated Wood as the best available. We were wrong but trading for a ruck was the right move. Some of those options you mentioned weren't available to us either, from memory Hudson selected the Bulldogs for instance. Others wouldn't have helped much in a Premiership push.
And talking about trading picks: what about Jolly? Should we have gone to the draft instead of using pick 14 on him? Or 30 on Ball? It's easy to preference the draft if you look at failed trades and only successful draftees. When you're ready to challenge, trading usually makes more sense than drafting which is a longer term prospect.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I think he's worth about an early 2nd rounder, or maybe a very late 1st rounder.
His total worth to the right destination, as the sum of parts, is worth more than his value to us imo. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Definitely agree. You can't keep a player who's worth close to a first rounder in the VFL. We can strengthen another part of our team and bring in a player who will be a permanent fixture.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | ^^Why? You have more chance of getting a draft pick wrong than a trade (exposed form). The Wood deal was the wrong one to make, but that doesn't mean going to the draft should be preferred.
We needed a ruck who was ready to help as soon as possible. Going to the draft was not really an option. We rated Wood as the best available. We were wrong but trading for a ruck was the right move. Some of those options you mentioned weren't available to us either, from memory Hudson selected the Bulldogs for instance. Others wouldn't have helped much in a Premiership push.
And talking about trading picks: what about Jolly? Should we have gone to the draft instead of using pick 14 on him? Or 30 on Ball? It's easy to preference the draft if you look at failed trades and only successful draftees. When you're ready to challenge, trading usually makes more sense than drafting which is a longer term prospect. |
As I said, swings and roundabouts but I would always prefer to go to the draft. We opted for Jolly and Ball in '09 but could equally have drafted players in the 2007-08-09 drafts who could have impacted equally. As you say, both Jolly and Ball were established players which gives greater credence to trading, but Wood was still highly speculative. And the need for another ruckman only became apparent when Fraser was injured early in the finals series (Sydney game?).
Last edited by jackcass on Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^I don't think there's any chance we could have drafted players that would have impacted equally. We needed leadership and experience, not rookies. and Wood was only 20, so not much different to a draftee.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^ it's not a philosophy that started in 2007.
2004 we traded pick 7 to the Hawks who used it to grab Lewis. Lewis would have offered pretty handy leadership 2008 and beyond.
1999 pick 3 for KcKee. Pav instead would have offered pretty handy leadership 2008 and beyond. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
