List Mgmt. COLLINGWOOD Trade & FA 2024

[Bianconeri]

Note: this isn't on Syd....they are only doing what they are allowed to do....and they have used their academies brilliantly.

They seem to know how to use every advantage they get brilliantly.

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

It's a combination of things with any club that's successful - drafting, trading, development, coaching, but I don't think you can get away from the simple premise that we wouldn't be where we are without priority access to Moore, Nick and IQ - didn't need priority access to Josh as no one wanted him earlier than we drafted him.

Don't disagree....maybe just playing a bit of devils advocate here.

Is the access only a problem because they are good?

Our 'hit rate' from FS is under 50% btw.....which is probably a similar hit rate to normal draft selections.
Brown 0/2 (actually 0-3 if you include Tarni),
Cloke 1 from 3.
Shaw 1 from 2
NGA 1 from 3 or 4.
Kelly

Are ones off the top of my head that we had access to that didn't quite get there.
I'm sure there are more.

When you actually lay it out like that, its not too different to normal draft pick success rates.

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

They seem to know how to use every advantage they get brilliantly.

I still think that troll on live trading was the best one yet.

 

[brockbruiser]

The issue with Sydney and the academies is that they are a well established AFL side now. They are a desired destination for players as seen by Adams and Grundy wanting to move there. Unlike GWS and Gold Coast they have Father Son opportunities as well.

While its beneficial for growing the game in NSW and producing talent, it's allowing Sydney to fish in a pool for players that other clubs don't have access to. Effectively, Sydney have access to every player in the national draft and their own pool of players whom they have first access.

There has to come a point where all clubs have fair access to these players just like players developed in Vic, SA or WA. Or Sydney pay close to market value to draft these players.

 

[sr36]

Don't disagree....maybe just playing a bit of devils advocate here.

Is the access only a problem because they are good?

Our 'hit rate' from FS is under 50% btw.....which is probably a similar hit rate to normal draft selections.
Brown 0/2 (actually 0-3 if you include Tarni),
Cloke 1 from 3.
Shaw 1 from 2
NGA 1 from 3 or 4.
Kelly

Are ones off the top of my head that we had access to that didn't quite get there.
I'm sure there are more.

When you actually lay it out like that, its not too different to normal draft pick success rates.

The access has been an issue because it has traditionally come with a heavy discount. It has been the biggest issue for top 5 kids which top teams have gotten access to without spending close to that in value.

People can say we paid pick 9 for Moore so it was pretty equal value - but Doggies wanted him at pick 3 or something like that - it would have cost a first round pick to trade from 9 to 3 to get Moore.

But even those blokes that didn't make it that we matched - Kelly and Cal Brown - they were second round picks that we got with absolute junk - 2nd round picks often don't make it - but if you're virtually getting free second round picks - it's pretty cool.

 

[SchuPie]

The access has been an issue because it has traditionally come with a heavy discount. It has been the biggest issue for top 5 kids which top teams have gotten access to without spending close to that in value.

People can say we paid pick 9 for Moore so it was pretty equal value - but Doggies wanted him at pick 3 or something like that - it would have cost a first round pick to trade from 9 to 3 to get Moore.

But even those blokes that didn't make it that we matched - Kelly and Cal Brown - they were second round picks that we got with absolute junk - 2nd round picks often don't make it - but if you're virtually getting free second round picks - it's pretty cool.

Dogs bid on him at 7

 

[manicpie]

Dogs bid on him at 7

Bastards

 

[JuniorB]

Anyone know if we would have picked Chad Warner at pick 40 in the 2019 draft, had Sydney not grabbed him at pick 39? Or were we linked to Jay Rantall and would have grabbed him anyway? ****ing sliding doors with that one.

That's yet another what if - if the Beams trade hadn't happened, we might have had access to players like Georgiades, Sam De Koning, as well as Warner.
Sigh!
However, the first Beams trade netted us Jordy & Crispy, so I suppose we can't really complain!

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

The access has been an issue because it has traditionally come with a heavy discount. It has been the biggest issue for top 5 kids which top teams have gotten access to without spending close to that in value.

People can say we paid pick 9 for Moore so it was pretty equal value - but Doggies wanted him at pick 3 or something like that - it would have cost a first round pick to trade from 9 to 3 to get Moore.

But even those blokes that didn't make it that we matched - Kelly and Cal Brown - they were second round picks that we got with absolute junk - 2nd round picks often don't make it - but if you're virtually getting free second round picks - it's pretty cool.

you do know that there have been a staggering 3 F/S that have gone top 5 in the last 10 years ?

(Nick & Darcy in 22, Ashcroft last year.........and before that, the last FS taken top 10 was Moore in 2014).

So 3 FS have been top 5.
4 top 10.
of which, Moore was paid good value due to the rules at the time.

So really, you're talking about 3 top 10 F/S year a 10 year period that clubs have gotten too cheap.

Whilst i agree with the fact it needs changing.....its hardly a causing a compromised draft!

side note: 12 top 10 players from academies (all cheap) in that same period.

IMO its complete hyperbole around FS as 'the problem'.
Clubs bitching because 50% of those top 10 FS have gone to 1 club.

 

[Exambolor]

Josh Battle

26

Josh Battle

Age

25

Ht

193cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.9

3star

K

9.0

3star

HB

3.9

3star

M

5.0

5star

T

2.4

4star

MG

196.8

3star

D

11.0

3star

K

7.3

3star

HB

3.8

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.8

3star

MG

142.8

3star

D

10.8

3star

K

6.2

3star

HB

4.6

4star

M

3.4

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

175.6

3star

update, looks like we’re still a consideration.

But more than likely it’ll be the boring choice and he goes to Hawthorn or something.

But why would he go to Melbourne, leaving one poorly run and crap team for another

 

[sr36]

you do know that there have been a staggering 3 F/S that have gone top 5 in the last 10 years ?

(Nick & Darcy in 22, Ashcroft last year.........and before that, the last FS taken top 10 was Moore in 2014).

So 3 FS have been top 5.
4 top 10.
of which, Moore was paid good value due to the rules at the time.

So really, you're talking about 3 top 10 F/S year a 10 year period that clubs have gotten too cheap.

Whilst i agree with the fact it needs changing.....its hardly a causing a compromised draft!

side note: 12 top 10 players from academies (all cheap) in that same period.

IMO its complete hyperbole around FS as 'the problem'.
Clubs bitching because 50% of those top 10 FS have gone to 1 club.

You missed Darcy at least - not sure if any others. For most of the time before the last 10 years a FS couldn't go top 10.

F/S academy picks are grouped together for most - as draft concessions. People complain about draft assistance packages for shit teams - the reality is that from the FA and academy draft concessions, some clubs have received advantages bigger than any assistance packages.

 

[No SPIN]

you do know that there have been a staggering 3 F/S that have gone top 5 in the last 10 years ?

(Nick & Darcy in 22, Ashcroft last year.........and before that, the last FS taken top 10 was Moore in 2014).

So 3 FS have been top 5.
4 top 10.
of which, Moore was paid good value due to the rules at the time.

So really, you're talking about 3 top 10 F/S year a 10 year period that clubs have gotten too cheap.

Whilst i agree with the fact it needs changing.....its hardly a causing a compromised draft!

side note: 12 top 10 players from academies (all cheap) in that same period.

IMO its complete hyperbole around FS as 'the problem'.
Clubs bitching because 50% of those top 10 FS have gone to 1 club.

The system was fine - when relative dud FS’s were picked.
When the Superstar FS’s came along then it suddenly became an issue.
We will therefore get an illogical knee jerk reaction from the AFL for a change to a system that across its entire existence, has been fine.

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

You missed Darcy at least - not sure if any others. For most of the time before the last 10 years a FS couldn't go top 10.

F/S academy picks are grouped together for most - as draft concessions. People complain about draft assistance packages for shit teams - the reality is that from the FA and academy draft concessions, some clubs have received advantages bigger than any assistance packages.

Didn't miss Darcy.
Named him next to Nick.

I just hope they change it this year to stitch up the Blues!

 

[Gabbo64]

Would it not be fairer to do it this way with F/S.
Keeping in mind, IMO, there should be a some sort of value consideraton to the family ties.
All F/S are bid for at the beginning of the draft. If a team bids their highest 1st round pick, (if they don't have a first rounder, their highest pick plus points picks to get the to first round value) they win the bid automatically.
Otherwise, the F/S club make a bid then each other team have one chance to better that bid. If the bid is bettered, the F/S have the option to better that bid and win the pick.

 

[TradeDraft]

Anyone know if we would have picked Chad Warner at pick 40 in the 2019 draft, had Sydney not grabbed him at pick 39? Or were we linked to Jay Rantall and would have grabbed him anyway? ****ing sliding doors with that one.

Happens in all Drafts

 

[sr36]

Didn't miss Darcy.
Named him next to Nick.

I just hope they change it this year to stitch up the Blues!

Me too.

Whoops - I assumed you'd missed Dogs Darcy as I count our Darcy as top 5, as that's where the bid came, even though the rules meant we didn't have to match the bid, so it isn't recorded as him being top 5. Same with a couple of Sydney academy kids - not sure about other father sons, plus a few earlier before bidding who were supposedly rated top 5 but who went third round.

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

Would it not be fairer to do it this way with F/S.
Keeping in mind, IMO, there should be a some sort of value consideraton to the family ties.
All F/S are bid for at the beginning of the draft. If a team bids their highest 1st round pick, (if they don't have a first rounder, their highest pick plus points picks to get the to first round value) they win the bid automatically.
Otherwise, the F/S club make a bid then each other team have one chance to better that bid. If the bid is bettered, the F/S have the option to better that bid and win the pick.

Didn't they do this type of bidding a long time ago?

Could have sworn this was how it used to be (F/S were bid on before the draft).
Maybe i'm imagining it.

No matter how it plays out, its more around asking clubs to pay 'fairer value' based on where a F/S or Academy player goes.

As Fonz is banging on about, it's removing the rubbish junk picks clubs use now to make up the 'value'.

 

[sr36]

Didn't they do this type of bidding a long time ago?

Could have sworn this was how it used to be (F/S were bid on before the draft).
Maybe i'm imagining it.

No matter how it plays out, its more around asking clubs to pay 'fairer value' based on where a F/S or Academy player goes.

As Fonz is banging on about, it's removing the rubbish junk picks clubs use now to make up the 'value'.

Not imagining it. When bidding first came in, that's how it was. It was done not just before the draft, but before trading began, so clubs still had their original draft hand - you matched with your next pick - after the bid. Couldn't go back there even if you wanted to, due to future pick trading.

 

[PIEWITHSAUCE]

The attached article of Cal Twomey also states that Bobby Hill who is contracted until 2026 is looking to extend his contract which contradicts SEN WA

On SM-N975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

"Peter" is obviously just making it up as he goes - he said that IF Bobby signs on for another 2 years that'll take him through until he's 26 and he may look to go home. Newsflash - he's already signed until he is 26.

 

[SchuPie]

Bastards

I remember on the telecast hoping that he would slide past their pick and that we could use pick 30 to draft him (and 9 for someone else...after grabbing JDG at 5)
As it turns out, selecting Maynard at 30 probably worked out better than Moore sliding.

 

[TW Sherrin]

Josh Battle update, looks like we’re still a consideration.

But more than likely it’ll be the boring choice and he goes to Hawthorn or something.

But why would he go to Melbourne, leaving one poorly run and crap team for another

View attachment 2024555

pretty sure Battle and Degoey are friends. I know they have a mutual friend and have spent time together in Bali.

 

[Apex36]

People complained back then and it was changed to “next pick”.

Then they brought points and trading in. Which is really what screwed it all up.

Think FS are being included because of academies. It’s gone from maybe 1 FS inside top 20 every few years to 5+ every year.

So they are just throwing them both into the same pot to make it fairer.

I agree with the argument….just hope they bow to public pressure and change it this year to stitch up Blues.

The “next pick” system was flawed and had complaints too, because you could potentially get first rounders for a second round pick if a bid came after your first, or in the case of Sydney with Heeney, get a pick 2 with pick 18.
Really a points system that requires a first round bid to be matched with at least 1 first round pick involved in the points make up makes the most sense. And if you’ve got 2 first round prospects you have the option of using your future first to match the second bid. The whole concept of turning shit picks to gold was always going to be exploited by clubs, and they’ve found more and more ways to do it as time has progressed.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

I remember on the telecast hoping that he would slide past their pick and that we could use pick 30 to draft him (and 9 for someone else...after grabbing JDG at 5)
As it turns out, selecting Maynard at 30 probably worked out better than Moore sliding.

Did I read somewhere that Maynard has played more games than anyone else in his draft year? If so he is even more outstanding at pick 30. He looks like another 300 game player.

 

[Apex36]

We wouldn’t have many on $500k +. He’s a good player but not worth more $$ than Mihocek and Maynard.

$500k is only slightly above the average afl contract now, so I’d say we likely have quite a few players on or above that now.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Really a points system that requires a first round bid to be matched with at least 1 first round pick involved in the points make up makes the most sense. And if you’ve got 2 first round prospects you have the option of using your future first to match the second bid.

Been thinking the same. It could even be that if you match a pick in the first round and you don't have a 1st for a few years because you have traded it out. Whenever you have a first in the future it will be automatically taken out of your future draft hand. You shouldnt have the option of trading in low 1st rounders to match either. Whatever your normal draft hand is, is what you can use to match. It cuts out the manipulation of trading in you top pick for a few lower picks.