 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thompsoc
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| think positive wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | The Club managed to do all the deals it wanted to do. It moved on the players it wanted to move on and brought in each of the players it had seriously targeted. The team working on those transactions has done another professional job and should be congratulated. |
Great post.
But were they on the right track! I guess only time will tell!
Meanwhile my hubby is telling me all about the radio talkback shows, blah blah blah we got £$%$ed over chose badly and now bucks has eight not ten to prove himself! Which has me yelling back next time your $£$%^%%$ team, and I use the your lighly, is on its knees hopefully my team is smart enough to let you $£$%^%%$ die. You £$%$ed us on Moore, and your still collecting the equalisation fund paid by us, did you thank us for your $£$%^%%$ premiership?
It's my team, leave the bagging to me! And right now I really have no idea how I feel about that team, the coach, our chances! I'm pinning the positive thoughts on the effort in the Bulldogs/ Hawks games, and the knowledge that even the AFL acknowledge the umps are giving them more than a fair run. Strangely that gives me a peace I've never got re the Harmes thing!
It's going to be a long long long preseason, worse than waiting to find out who Negan swings the barbed wire bat at. |
Who is Negan?
_________________
we don't eat our own at collingwood we just allow them to foul our nest. |
|
|
|
 |
melliot
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | melliot wrote: | Meh.
I think it was average at best. But probably lower than I hoped. If Cloke = 76. Then most our remaining list = an average pick 60. Which is a blight on our list management team.
I think our list management stratagy is lost.
I think our list has gone backwards in 2017. I think we'll be around the 8 wins again. Only hope will be that injuries are significantly reduced and some of our existing low pick blossom. |
This is a poor argument. What's Hawthorn's list worth when Lewis and Hodge were traded for almost nothing?
There's no way our list has gone backwards. And you can use your own argument to prove it. The players we let go (and we did) were not valued highly by the market. More importantly they weren't valued highly by us. They were, by and large, not first team players in 2016 and would have played less in 2017. When we brought in at least three players who will clearly be in our best 22 most weeks, how is that going backwards? There's no logic to that at all. |
Yes, it is a simplification to rate the list based one trade value. But my statement was more the point that Cloke was worth more than pick 76.
As I've said elsewhere, ignoring all other issues (salary/disharmony etc), at Trade value alone he was worth keeping at that value. Even as a back up to Moore and White when they can't play. Rd 23 is the good example of that, he was handy against the Hawks and provided good structure. Cloke against the Giants showed he can still create massive trouble for opposition, even if it is rare. Its a case of seeing what a player can do, rather than what he can't do.
This argument that some of these players we let go were not in our best 22 is flawed. We all know it takes 32-35 players to contribute to perform well through a season. You need depth in the list. 2016 to 2017 we have lost depth IMO and will be reliant on Moore/White/Reid/Keeffe to hold form and resist injury to maintain a spine. That is a scary reliance IMO. Back up players after them is very thin.
The changes might be for the long term better beyond 2017. But I don't think our list is good enough for finals in 2017, and therefore I think Buckley's goose is cooked. After 3-4 years of rebuilding, we are still a fair way off making finals again.
Hope I'm very wrong. Very good run with injuries will help. But we will get Injuries. I guarantee that much. |
|
|
|
|
melliot
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | melliot wrote: | Meh.
I think it was average at best. But probably lower than I hoped. If Cloke = 76. Then most our remaining list = an average pick 60. Which is a blight on our list management team.
I think our list management stratagy is lost.
I think our list has gone backwards in 2017. I think we'll be around the 8 wins again. Only hope will be that injuries are significantly reduced and some of our existing low pick blossom. |
This is a poor argument. What's Hawthorn's list worth when Lewis and Hodge were traded for almost nothing?
There's no way our list has gone backwards. And you can use your own argument to prove it. The players we let go (and we did) were not valued highly by the market. More importantly they weren't valued highly by us. They were, by and large, not first team players in 2016 and would have played less in 2017. When we brought in at least three players who will clearly be in our best 22 most weeks, how is that going backwards? There's no logic to that at all. |
Yes, it is a simplification to rate the list based one trade value. But my statement was more the point that Cloke was worth more than pick 76.
As I've said elsewhere, ignoring all other issues (salary/disharmony etc), at Trade value alone he was worth keeping at that value. Even as a back up to Moore and White when they can't play. Rd 23 is the good example of that, he was handy against the Hawks and provided good structure. Cloke against the Giants showed he can still create massive trouble for opposition, even if it is rare. Its a case of seeing what a player can do, rather than what he can't do.
This argument that some of these players we let go were not in our best 22 is flawed. We all know it takes 32-35 players to contribute to perform well through a season. You need depth in the list. 2016 to 2017 we have lost depth IMO and will be reliant on Moore/White/Reid/Keeffe to hold form and resist injury to maintain a spine. That is a scary reliance IMO. Back up players after them is very thin.
The changes might be for the long term better beyond 2017. But I don't think our list is good enough for finals in 2017, and therefore I think Buckley's goose is cooked. After 3-4 years of rebuilding, we are still a fair way off making finals again.
Hope I'm very wrong. Very good run with injuries will help. But we will get Injuries. I guarantee that much. |
|
|
|
|
thompsoc
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| melliot wrote: | | AN_Inkling wrote: | | melliot wrote: | Meh.
I think it was average at best. But probably lower than I hoped. If Cloke = 76. Then most our remaining list = an average pick 60. Which is a blight on our list management team.
I think our list management stratagy is lost.
I think our list has gone backwards in 2017. I think we'll be around the 8 wins again. Only hope will be that injuries are significantly reduced and some of our existing low pick blossom. |
This is a poor argument. What's Hawthorn's list worth when Lewis and Hodge were traded for almost nothing?
There's no way our list has gone backwards. And you can use your own argument to prove it. The players we let go (and we did) were not valued highly by the market. More importantly they weren't valued highly by us. They were, by and large, not first team players in 2016 and would have played less in 2017. When we brought in at least three players who will clearly be in our best 22 most weeks, how is that going backwards? There's no logic to that at all. |
Yes, it is a simplification to rate the list based one trade value. But my statement was more the point that Cloke was worth more than pick 76.
As I've said elsewhere, ignoring all other issues (salary/disharmony etc), at Trade value alone he was worth keeping at that value. Even as a back up to Moore and White when they can't play. Rd 23 is the good example of that, he was handy against the Hawks and provided good structure. Cloke against the Giants showed he can still create massive trouble for opposition, even if it is rare. Its a case of seeing what a player can do, rather than what he can't do.
This argument that some of these players we let go were not in our best 22 is flawed. We all know it takes 32-35 players to contribute to perform well through a season. You need depth in the list. 2016 to 2017 we have lost depth IMO and will be reliant on Moore/White/Reid/Keeffe to hold form and resist injury to maintain a spine. That is a scary reliance IMO. Back up players after them is very thin.
The changes might be for the long term better beyond 2017. But I don't think our list is good enough for finals in 2017, and therefore I think Buckley's goose is cooked. After 3-4 years of rebuilding, we are still a fair way off making finals again.
Hope I'm very wrong. Very good run with injuries will help. But we will get Injuries. I guarantee that much. |
Well said Melliot.
I have been really surprised at the number of posters who love throwing so many players under the bus.
Cloke being the stand out.
Just weird.
_________________
we don't eat our own at collingwood we just allow them to foul our nest. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MightyMagpie wrote: | | WhyPhilWhy? wrote: | | Would you not use Pick 28 on the best available KPF at that point? |
2016 is supposedly a strong midfielders draft (and deep, some say down to about pick 50) and 2017 a stronger KPP draft, but I guess it will all depend on who is available when the time comes. |
I'd be hoping we grab KPP types with every pick beside those used to grab Brown and Daicos. It's not so much about 2017 (although we need KPP depth) but allowing players to develop for 2018 and beyond. Be very happy if we could land 2 of Brennan Cox, Jack Maibum, Josh Rotham, Will Hayward, Jordan Ridley or Cedric Cox. |
|
|
|
|
thompsoc
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| jackcass wrote: | | MightyMagpie wrote: | | WhyPhilWhy? wrote: | | Would you not use Pick 28 on the best available KPF at that point? |
2016 is supposedly a strong midfielders draft (and deep, some say down to about pick 50) and 2017 a stronger KPP draft, but I guess it will all depend on who is available when the time comes. |
I'd be hoping we grab KPP types with every pick beside those used to grab Brown and Daicos. It's not so much about 2017 (although we need KPP depth) but allowing players to develop for 2018 and beyond. Be very happy if we could land 2 of Brennan Cox, Jack Maibum, Josh Rotham, Will Hayward, Jordan Ridley or Cedric Cox. |
The endless rebuilding.
2011 to 2020
Reconstruction time at Collingwood.
_________________
we don't eat our own at collingwood we just allow them to foul our nest. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Damien wrote: | | So hawks have lost 1 and 2 in their 2016 B&F (for a couple of draft picks in the 80's), given up future picks, brought in Vickery who is a total flog and O'Meara who hasn't played a game for 2 years and who's body is highly doubtful. Yeah, they've done real well. |
Hawks have sold their future for JOM and Mitchell and got Vickery on a hail Mary. They're hoping they'll offset the loss of Mitchell, Lewis and Hill and give coverage for Roughy. They'll be desperate for continued great service from Hodge, Gibson and Burgoyne. Their first pick in the ND is pick 88, and they sold away much of their 2017 draft. Who will they have to sell next year to get back into the draft? |
|
|
|
|
thompsoc
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| jackcass wrote: | | Damien wrote: | | So hawks have lost 1 and 2 in their 2016 B&F (for a couple of draft picks in the 80's), given up future picks, brought in Vickery who is a total flog and O'Meara who hasn't played a game for 2 years and who's body is highly doubtful. Yeah, they've done real well. |
Hawks have sold their future for JOM and Mitchell and got Vickery on a hail Mary. They're hoping they'll offset the loss of Mitchell, Lewis and Hill and give coverage for Roughy. They'll be desperate for continued great service from Hodge, Gibson and Burgoyne. Their first pick in the ND is pick 88, and they sold away much of their 2017 draft. Who will they have to sell next year to get back into the draft? |
Two new gun young midfield dudes in for two gun old midfield dudes.
That seems a no brainer.
As for Vic ....he can mark.
That is the standard big boy recruiting strategy of Hawthorn for the last 10 years.
4 flags is a good return on that thinking.
I reckon Hawks are looking at 3 to 5 years time.
This is step 1.
_________________
we don't eat our own at collingwood we just allow them to foul our nest. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MightyMagpie wrote: | | qldmagpie67 wrote: | | Raw Hammer wrote: | | Brown wil be bid on by a team at 25-26 ish to screw us as he's touted as a top 30 pick. Hopefully not. |
We get a 20% discount on any father son bid.
So if a bid around what you suggest would be around 756-729 points
Take away our discount of 150-146 points means we would have to find 606-583 points
So picks 44 & 51 would get the deal done from this years picks we have
We have also picked up 2 X 3rd picks and 2 X 4th round picks for 2017 which we can use to land Daicos
Would still leave us pick 28,62,65,88 so we have picks to use in the draft
Apparently it's a faulty even draft so any club bidding on Daicos or Brown will know we can burn later picks or next years late round picks and nab them which pushes that club down the draft order. I wouldn't be to worried at all hammer |
You don't get to choose the picks for points. Points come off the next pick after the bid (and if need be the next one, and so on).
This is why clubs have sought to move up high in the draft order so they can draft an elite player before academy/FS players get bid on. |
Yes, but you get allocated a pick for any residual points.
For example, bid comes in at 27 (703 pts), we use 28 (677 pts) and with our 197 pt discount we'd get 171 residual points which would get us pick 58. So we'd effectively get Brown and pick 58 for 28. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Can you think of another example? |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: | | jatsad wrote: | Can people stop using the following argument.
"If Grundy or Reid or Moore get injured, what have we got for depth".
If, if, if.
Take 3 of the best players out of any team and see how they go.
Also, people are worried about what Wells and Mayne are getting paid.
Honestly, who cares.
As long as on field they are good.
And with TPP going up next year, we have plenty in reserve to use next year.
Too much worrying going on. |
Hawthorn lost Buddy to Sydney and Roughead to illness, yet they were still able to perform at a high level through to the end of this season. Us on the other hand suffer a few injuries and the team falls apart. A bit of cover for both Moore and Reid, who have a history of leg problems, wouldn't have gone astray. We have no developing KPP's who can take over from Reid and White when they retire. So our lack of KPP depth is a worry which most of the football experts identified in their assessment of all the club trades. |
I do love how people can minimise our injury issues to suit an argument. A few... LOL! |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| thompsoc wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | The Club managed to do all the deals it wanted to do. It moved on the players it wanted to move on and brought in each of the players it had seriously targeted. The team working on those transactions has done another professional job and should be congratulated. |
Great post.
But were they on the right track! I guess only time will tell!
Meanwhile my hubby is telling me all about the radio talkback shows, blah blah blah we got £$%$ed over chose badly and now bucks has eight not ten to prove himself! Which has me yelling back next time your $£$%^%%$ team, and I use the your lighly, is on its knees hopefully my team is smart enough to let you $£$%^%%$ die. You £$%$ed us on Moore, and your still collecting the equalisation fund paid by us, did you thank us for your $£$%^%%$ premiership?
It's my team, leave the bagging to me! And right now I really have no idea how I feel about that team, the coach, our chances! I'm pinning the positive thoughts on the effort in the Bulldogs/ Hawks games, and the knowledge that even the AFL acknowledge the umps are giving them more than a fair run. Strangely that gives me a peace I've never got re the Harmes thing!
It's going to be a long long long preseason, worse than waiting to find out who Negan swings the barbed wire bat at. |
Who is Negan? |
Not sure he's a good captain but he'd be a handy defender
https://youtu.be/4iefc8865Dg
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
MightyMagpie
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| jackcass wrote: | | MightyMagpie wrote: | | qldmagpie67 wrote: | | Raw Hammer wrote: | | Brown wil be bid on by a team at 25-26 ish to screw us as he's touted as a top 30 pick. Hopefully not. |
We get a 20% discount on any father son bid.
So if a bid around what you suggest would be around 756-729 points
Take away our discount of 150-146 points means we would have to find 606-583 points
So picks 44 & 51 would get the deal done from this years picks we have
We have also picked up 2 X 3rd picks and 2 X 4th round picks for 2017 which we can use to land Daicos
Would still leave us pick 28,62,65,88 so we have picks to use in the draft
Apparently it's a faulty even draft so any club bidding on Daicos or Brown will know we can burn later picks or next years late round picks and nab them which pushes that club down the draft order. I wouldn't be to worried at all hammer |
You don't get to choose the picks for points. Points come off the next pick after the bid (and if need be the next one, and so on).
This is why clubs have sought to move up high in the draft order so they can draft an elite player before academy/FS players get bid on. |
Yes, but you get allocated a pick for any residual points.
For example, bid comes in at 27 (703 pts), we use 28 (677 pts) and with our 197 pt discount we'd get 171 residual points which would get us pick 58. So we'd effectively get Brown and pick 58 for 28. |
You said picks 44 and 51 would get the deal done. I was pointing out you don't get to choose.
If he gets bid on before 28 and we match, then 44 will be our highest pick (at best). If he gets bid on after 28 then those later picks should do the trick. We need to hope he doesn't get bid on before 28.
_________________
All We Can Be |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MightyMagpie wrote: | | jackcass wrote: | | MightyMagpie wrote: | | qldmagpie67 wrote: | | Raw Hammer wrote: | | Brown wil be bid on by a team at 25-26 ish to screw us as he's touted as a top 30 pick. Hopefully not. |
We get a 20% discount on any father son bid.
So if a bid around what you suggest would be around 756-729 points
Take away our discount of 150-146 points means we would have to find 606-583 points
So picks 44 & 51 would get the deal done from this years picks we have
We have also picked up 2 X 3rd picks and 2 X 4th round picks for 2017 which we can use to land Daicos
Would still leave us pick 28,62,65,88 so we have picks to use in the draft
Apparently it's a faulty even draft so any club bidding on Daicos or Brown will know we can burn later picks or next years late round picks and nab them which pushes that club down the draft order. I wouldn't be to worried at all hammer |
You don't get to choose the picks for points. Points come off the next pick after the bid (and if need be the next one, and so on).
This is why clubs have sought to move up high in the draft order so they can draft an elite player before academy/FS players get bid on. |
Yes, but you get allocated a pick for any residual points.
For example, bid comes in at 27 (703 pts), we use 28 (677 pts) and with our 197 pt discount we'd get 171 residual points which would get us pick 58. So we'd effectively get Brown and pick 58 for 28. |
You said picks 44 and 51 would get the deal done. I was pointing out you don't get to choose.
If he gets bid on before 28 and we match, then 44 will be our highest pick (at best). If he gets bid on after 28 then those later picks should do the trick. We need to hope he doesn't get bid on before 28. |
I didn't say anything about picks 44 & 51, I was merely adding to your comments. |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| thompsoc wrote: | | September Zeros wrote: | | thompsoc wrote: | | melliot wrote: | Meh.
I think it was average at best. But probably lower than I hoped. If Cloke = 76. Then most our remaining list = an average pick 60. Which is a blight on our list management team.
I think our list management stratagy is lost.
I think our list has gone backwards in 2017. I think we'll be around the 8 wins again. Only hope will be that injuries are significantly reduced and some of our existing low pick blossom. |
But Hine our list manager is a genius.
I have read that for years and years and years. |
Tbh I havn't read it anywhere except in your posts.
I give the trade period a pass at 6.5 - 7 / 10
We came to the table with very little to play with and came out ever so slightly ahead.
A win is a win even if it won't turn us into a premiership team it's a step in the right direction.
Some of you guys really need to find some happiness in life. |
Don't worry about us SZ
I am a seasoned campaigner.
I can handle the swings and roundabouts.
I just finished a marvellous article on fishing that will be published soon.
Nix is just a side show to me. |
Is it about trolling ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
