 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | ^^My understanding is we can use our first round pick, both this year's and next. I'd not be giving up two of our most promising young players even for Lynch. One at most along with our first pick and probably a second.
Pick 6, De Goey, 2018 2nd rounder is a very fair deal.
My preference would be to keep De Goey though. Giving up an older player for leadership at the Suns could be an option instead: Pendles or Sidebottom. Would also help free up the required cap space. A lower value young player could be possible as well: Scharenberg, Maynard.
I think we definitely have the assets to work a deal, now we just need him to actually want to leave for Pie land. |
i agree with you Inky. 100%
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
 |
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Is there a spot for Aish, Scharenberg and Ramsay in our best 22?
It's a shame because all 3 were promising recruits, but for various reasons they seem superfluous to our needs imo, apart from being depth players only. Unfortunately, I doubt that either of them would have much trade value either. |
|
|
|
|
Woods 
Joined: 21 Aug 2013
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Just a bit of perspective.
This time last year the focus was on beefing up what was perceived as a weak back line going into 2017. People were enthused by the promise of the mid-field (best in the league the papers were saying) and a forward line of Moore, big Cox, Fasolo and Elliot (returning from back surgery).
So how did that go? As turned out it was the mid-field’s inability to deliver effectively inside 50 and the forwards’ inability to mark and kick straight. The back line saved the day throughout the year – a goal defended being the equivalent of a goal scored. Without that backline consistency those close honourable losses would have been dishonourable blow outs.
So now we look toward 2018 and people want to rob Peter to pay Paul by trading out the midfield to beef up perceived weakness in the forward line. And for a KPF? Is this a reversion to the old ‘kick to Cloke mantra’? And you do understand that a gun KPF would drastically alter the game structure that has been practiced all year. You really want to go back to square one and start all over again with a KPF-centric game plan? With our bunch of slow learners? Just be careful what you wish for. There’s not too much broke that needs a fixin’. Best to build on what we have. |
|
|
|
|
Damien 
Me Noah & Flynn @ the G
Joined: 21 Jan 1999
Location: Croydon Vic
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Woods wrote: | Just a bit of perspective.
This time last year the focus was on beefing up what was perceived as a weak back line going into 2017. People were enthused by the promise of the mid-field (best in the league the papers were saying) and a forward line of Moore, big Cox, Fasolo and Elliot (returning from back surgery).
So how did that go? As turned out it was the mid-field’s inability to deliver effectively inside 50 and the forwards’ inability to mark and kick straight. The back line saved the day throughout the year – a goal defended being the equivalent of a goal scored. Without that backline consistency those close honourable losses would have been dishonourable blow outs.
So now we look toward 2018 and people want to rob Peter to pay Paul by trading out the midfield to beef up perceived weakness in the forward line. And for a KPF? Is this a reversion to the old ‘kick to Cloke mantra’? And you do understand that a gun KPF would drastically alter the game structure that has been practiced all year. You really want to go back to square one and start all over again with a KPF-centric game plan? With our bunch of slow learners? Just be careful what you wish for. There’s not too much broke that needs a fixin’. Best to build on what we have. |
Totally agree. A key back is our highest priority due to our backlines age profile followed by a key forward but I think most of our improvement should come from within. Any talk of trading JDG or Cox is crazy stuff. I think our starting blueprint for next year's team should be what we saw in our final game for the year.
_________________
'Collingwood are the Bradmans of Football'
The Herald - 1930 |
|
|
|
|
MightyMagpie
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Mayne's Pies future remains unclear. Goldsack, Wills to re-sign. Keeffe/Thomas in talks @agerealfooty @theagesport
https://t.co/aUbQrHDdLt
_________________
All We Can Be |
|
|
|
|
MightyMagpie
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MightyMagpie wrote: | It appears that we are starting with picks 6, 36, 54, 59, 78.
The AFL empowered clubs to trade future draft picks in 2015, albeit with restrictions, including being able to trade only one year ahead and having to make at least two first-round selections every four years. Another complexity is if a club swaps a future round-one pick it cannot also offload later selections in that draft unless it trades back in, and vice versa.
We did not make first round selections in 2015 and 2016 (Treloar deal). It has been commented that this rule can be gotten around with AFL approval ... I think it came up with Geelong last year (?). I'm not sure where that stands now.
Priority 1 - Restore TPP integrity. This is clearly code for getting rid of Mayne and his contract, but that will prove much harder to do than say. Why would he give up $ and why would another club take him unless we paid the difference between contract value and market value (and that assumes that a club would want him as a player). The only thought I've had on this is that the Swans are in a similar position regarding Tippett, albeit Tippett is a better and more valuable player. Removing Mayne will cost us, but maybe we can parley it into a KPF in Tippett?
Priority 2 - KPB. We are relying on Dunn, Reid and Goldsack who are approaching the end of their careers and it is far from clear that Schade is a ready-made replacement. Moore can swing back but that leaves a second KPF hole forward. Lever has been mentioned, but would be expensive to acquire given interest of many clubs. Is there another Dunn out there? We should be closely monitoring the FA list and delisted player lists for a bargain pickup KPB. History for us and other clubs suggests that we can get a decent veteran cheap.
Priority 3 - KPF. Pick 6 might get a KPF draftee such as Brander, but the draft is thin for KPP and there is a risk that Brander could be gone and we would be picking below our draft pick level if we were chasing a KPP. I'm no expert on potential draftees and we will get more details as mock drafts etc progress. Tom Lynch is out of contract in 2018 and given events at Gold Cost, I wonder if he can be enticed? We have pick 6 and some Queensland trade bait (not huge value by any means) in Keeffe, Oxley, Thomas. I think we may need to be more creative than that though.
Priority 4 - Polish. Josh Kelly anyone? But how? Lesser names that have been mentioned include Devon Smith and Jacob Hopper from GWS and I would expect Gold Coast to lose several players this year given events: Tom Lynch (see above), Aaron Hall, Brandon Matera and perhaps others might suit.
Priority 5 - Ruck backup. This moves up the order if we lose Cox. Serviceable backups can be acquired cheaply and could possibly even be rookie listed - think Hudson, Giles, Curry etc. Not after a star, just depth if the unthinkable happens.
Priority 6 - Hodge. A Hail Mary. I know he has retired, but a play-then-coach contract for Hodge would suit nicely providing a backline general for 1-2 years and bringing Hawthorn IP and leadership across. |
Re 6
BREAKING | @sam_mcclure reports that Mark Evans has contacted Luke Hodge about playing at Gold Coast. He is "seriously considering" it.
_________________
All We Can Be |
|
|
|
|
MightyMagpie
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Billy Hartung out of contract, will have to sit and wait until trade period unfolds ... No guarantees at Hawks yet ... @7NewsMelbourne
_________________
All We Can Be |
|
|
|
|
MightyMagpie
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA
|
|
|
|
|
MightyMagpie
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Just going to post a few draft pick trading hypotheticals using the Draft Pick Value Index.
First (and probably less likely) I'll look at trading up the draft order and then I'll look at trading down inside the first 3 rounds.
Pick order will change with FA compensation and, ultimately, on draft day with FS and academy bidding likely moving picks up the order.
Our picks 6, 36, 54, 59, 78 are worth 1751, 502, 220, 158 and 0, total 2631.
I'm just canvassing plausible possibilities rather than promoting anything at this stage.
Trading Up The Draft Order
Brisbane (1):3000 points so likely would have to involve a player.
Gold Coast (2): 2517 points. 6, 36 and 54 for 2?
Carlton (3): 2234 points. 6 and 36 for 3?
North (4): 2034 points. 6 and 54 for 4?
Freo (5): 1878 points. 6 and 59 for 5?
Western Bulldogs (9, 26, 39): 1469, 729 and 446 points. Picks 6, 36, 54 and 59 for 9, 26 and 39? Lose 3 places in first round and brings 36 into 26 (10 places) and 54 into 39 (15 places).
Trading Down The Draft Order
St Kilda (7, 8, 43): 1644 + 1551 +378 = 3573. 6 for 8 and 43?
Western Bulldogs (9, 26, 39): see above.
Melbourne (10, 27, 45): 1395 + 703 + 347 = 2445. 6 for 10 and 27 or 45?
West Coast (11, 28, 46): 1329 + 677 + 331 = 2337. 6 for 11 and 28 or 46?
Essendon (12, 29, 47): 1268 + 653 + 316 = 2237. 6 for 12 and 29 or 47?
Sydney (13, 30, 48 ): 1212 + 629 +302 = 2143. 6 for 13 and 30 or 48?
Brisbane (14, 18 (2nd rounder), 41): 1161 + 985 + 412 = 2607. 6 and 36 for 14 and 18? Maybe (pity 18 isn't a first rounder).
Richmond (15, 16, 50, 51): 1112 + 1067 + 273 + 259 = 2711. 6 and 36 for 15 and 16? Maybe (gets us 2 first rounders!)
Adelaide (17, 35, 53): 1025 + 522 +233 = 1780. 6 for 17, 35 and 53 (keeps a first rounder and adds two picks).
(no first rounders beyond this point, so becomes problematic given we must make 2 first round picks in total this year and next.)
Gold Coast (19, 22, 24, 33, 37): 948 + 845 + 785 + 563 + 483 = 3624.
Geelong (20, 34, 52): 912 + 542 + 246 = 1700.
North ([4], 21, 44): ignoring 4 which would be a trade up, 878 + 362 = 1240.
GWS (23, 25): 815 + 756 = 1571.
Port (31, 49): 606 + 287 = 893.
Hawthorn (32, 42): 584 + 395 = 979.
Carlton ([3], 38 ) ignoring 3 which would be a trade up, 465.
Freo ([5], 40) ignoring 5 which would be a trade up, 429.
I raised the Richmond scenario with Knightmare. His comments:
@Mighty_Magpies Happy to move pick 6 down. Balta is my favoured tall. If move into second round really like Harrison Petty and Callum Coleman-Jones.
@Mighty_Magpies A draft overall to go for talls. Lots of good talls this year with AFL chances, but less of everything else relative to other years.
http://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_/id/20567316/knightmare-afl-draft-power-rankings-september-andrew-brayshaw-surges
_________________
All We Can Be
Last edited by MightyMagpie on Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:56 pm; edited 9 times in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tell me a little about your life in north ~~615~~ 2034 points. |
|
|
|
|
MightyMagpie
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA
|
|
|
|
|
MightyMagpie
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA
|
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Woods wrote: | Just a bit of perspective.
This time last year the focus was on beefing up what was perceived as a weak back line going into 2017. People were enthused by the promise of the mid-field (best in the league the papers were saying) and a forward line of Moore, big Cox, Fasolo and Elliot (returning from back surgery).
So how did that go? As turned out it was the mid-field’s inability to deliver effectively inside 50 and the forwards’ inability to mark and kick straight. The back line saved the day throughout the year – a goal defended being the equivalent of a goal scored. Without that backline consistency those close honourable losses would have been dishonourable blow outs.
So now we look toward 2018 and people want to rob Peter to pay Paul by trading out the midfield to beef up perceived weakness in the forward line. And for a KPF? Is this a reversion to the old ‘kick to Cloke mantra’? And you do understand that a gun KPF would drastically alter the game structure that has been practiced all year. You really want to go back to square one and start all over again with a KPF-centric game plan? With our bunch of slow learners? Just be careful what you wish for. There’s not too much broke that needs a fixin’. Best to build on what we have. |
+ 1
Footy continues to evolve and the Dogs gave clubs something to think about when they won a flag on the back of manic smaller forwards who kept the ball in their own forward line until they got a result. If ( and it's a big if ) the Tigers go deep into Sept on the back of their forward structure, it just might be that the need for a KPF is no longer our number one priority.
So much depends on whether we retain Cox or not. If he stays, I would much prefer to trade in a young ready made KPD ( like Lever ) and then invest heavily in pace in our forward line however we can. We have no pace on our list under thirty ( Treloar aside ) and we are a long way behind the good teams in this area.
Then by all means, have a real crack at Lynch at the end of 2018 when you already know the quality that you are buying into. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Alternatively, if the Tigers go deep, every club will be training over preseason to try to counter a small forward line with manic pressure, so the betting man would go tall.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
Alternatively, if the Tigers go deep, every club will be training over preseason to try to counter a small forward line with manic pressure, so the betting man would go tall. |
And it's a great conversation to be had.
And at the end of the day, the big boys still lead the goal kicking every season.
I think the modern thinking is all about forward line retention and that's best achieved by having your six forwards ( regardless of size ) all being capable of applying repeat pressure inside your own fifty.
If one of those forwards happens to be 6' 4" + then all the better. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
