AXV: TRADE PERIOD 1 DISCUSSION (2016/17)

[Rids]

Seems fine to me. Blakely is only going to get more opportunity Ross will play him and he's a ball magnet (although handball happy). Lyons is pretty good too.


I don't understand this blocked trades stuff. No one trades with the intention to make their teams worse, and being able to oversell your players is part of the management!

Lyons was the 18th highest forward for 2016. He will keep DPP as he played off half forward for the majority of the year. He averaged 119 for the year in AXV.

Blakely averaged 94. He is an undoubted talent and could be a beast. But for the time being he isn't in the ballpark of Lyons.

Nat 15 for Brandon Jack who didnt play a game in 2016 is clear overs for me as well.

[iZander]

Seems fine to me. Blakely is only going to get more opportunity Ross will play him and he's a ball magnet (although handball happy). Lyons is pretty good too.


I don't understand this blocked trades stuff. No one trades with the intention to make their teams worse, and being able to oversell your players is part of the management!

Lyons was the 18th highest forward for 2016. He will keep DPP as he played off half forward for the majority of the year. He averaged 119 for the year in AXV.

Blakely averaged 94. He is an undoubted talent and could be a beast. But for the time being he isn't in the ballpark of Lyons.

Nat 15 for Brandon Jack who didnt play a game in 2016 is clear overs for me as well.

So are we saying players should be valued on what they scored this year rather than what potential people think the player has?

I tend to agree with you, just wanting to gage what your thoughts were

Trade approved regardless now anyway, this would just be discussion for future

[Rids]

Seems fine to me. Blakely is only going to get more opportunity Ross will play him and he's a ball magnet (although handball happy). Lyons is pretty good too.


I don't understand this blocked trades stuff. No one trades with the intention to make their teams worse, and being able to oversell your players is part of the management!

Lyons was the 18th highest forward for 2016. He will keep DPP as he played off half forward for the majority of the year. He averaged 119 for the year in AXV.

Blakely averaged 94. He is an undoubted talent and could be a beast. But for the time being he isn't in the ballpark of Lyons.

Nat 15 for Brandon Jack who didnt play a game in 2016 is clear overs for me as well.

So are we saying players should be valued on what they scored this year rather than what potential people think the player has?

I tend to agree with you, just wanting to gage what your thoughts were

Trade approved regardless now anyway, this would just be discussion for future

I think everything has to be taken into account. There are many variables that should be taken into account. Don't forget that we had a trade rejected (rightly or wrongly - it doesn't matter now) based on potential of Mathieson and differing views on it.

It really cant be one way or the other. It is why trades dont have to be even to pass. They just need to be close to being fair.

[nostradamus]

Seems fine to me. Blakely is only going to get more opportunity Ross will play him and he's a ball magnet (although handball happy). Lyons is pretty good too.


I don't understand this blocked trades stuff. No one trades with the intention to make their teams worse, and being able to oversell your players is part of the management!

Lyons was the 18th highest forward for 2016. He will keep DPP as he played off half forward for the majority of the year. He averaged 119 for the year in AXV.

Blakely averaged 94. He is an undoubted talent and could be a beast. But for the time being he isn't in the ballpark of Lyons.

Nat 15 for Brandon Jack who didnt play a game in 2016 is clear overs for me as well.

Positional value was used as a factor in rejecting our trade for Stefan, but seems not to have been a factor here. Where's the transperency or consistency?

[iZander]

Not sure why you compare with the stef trade tbh, wasn't even close to fair, stef worth more than math alone not to mention the 19 (robbo) to 13 pick upgrade you were getting. Can't complain about that one

[Rids]

Not sure why you compare with the stef trade tbh, wasn't even close to fair, stef worth more than math alone not to mention the 19 (robbo) to 13 pick upgrade you were getting. Can't complain about that one

That is your opinion and you are more than welcome to it.

This isnt a discussion on the rejected trade. This is a discussion on using the rejection reasons made for the rejection and why they have not been applied in other trades.

[iZander]

Not sure why you compare with the stef trade tbh, wasn't even close to fair, stef worth more than math alone not to mention the 19 (robbo) to 13 pick upgrade you were getting. Can't complain about that one

This is a discussion on using the rejection reasons made for the rejection and why they have not been applied in other trades.

You were the one who mentioned your trade.

[Rids]

Not sure why you compare with the stef trade tbh, wasn't even close to fair, stef worth more than math alone not to mention the 19 (robbo) to 13 pick upgrade you were getting. Can't complain about that one

This is a discussion on using the rejection reasons made for the rejection and why they have not been applied in other trades.

You were the one who mentioned your trade.

Only in relation to the question you asked...

So are we saying players should be valued on what they scored this year rather than what potential people think the player has?

I think everything has to be taken into account. There are many variables that should be taken into account. Don't forget that we had a trade rejected (rightly or wrongly - it doesn't matter now) based on potential of Mathieson and differing views on it.

The reason why I mentioned it was the next part of my message...

It really cant be one way or the other. It is why trades dont have to be even to pass. They just need to be close to being fair.


I am using it as an example of why this discussion is taking place. The brackets say (rightly or wrongly - it doesnt matter now) because all parties have moved on from that trade. But the reasons for rejecting it dont seem to be taken into account for other trades.

Anyways, getting way off track now. At the end of the day we just want some clarity so we know what we should be offering/asking for in future trade negotiations.

[Rids]

I will just add, that we have no interest in having the Stefan trade or the Lyons trade reversed at all. We just really want some clarity moving forward on what is a fair trade and what isn't because we are very confused.

Anyways, spent way too long on fanfooty today haha! Back to work.

[Koop]

I'd just like to add that Tbag came chasing me for Blakely and actually offered the agreed deal first up with 1 tweak (adding Jack). PB is correct in saying that no-one trades to make their team worse, (Unless your name is FS  ;D) and perceived value is different for everyone. Is it lopsided? Absolutely. Does it suit TBag's Best XV structure? Yes certainly. Maybe it shouldn't have passed considering what else has been negged, but can't change that now.

[nostradamus]

This is fantastic, the increased discussion and airing of opinions can only help to reinvigorate this comp.

The more coaches that come out and air their views the better the better for us all.

If anyone has an opinion put it out there, whether it has to do with the current discussions or is something completely new.

[tbagrocks]

Seems fine to me. Blakely is only going to get more opportunity Ross will play him and he's a ball magnet (although handball happy). Lyons is pretty good too.


I don't understand this blocked trades stuff. No one trades with the intention to make their teams worse, and being able to oversell your players is part of the management!

Lyons was the 18th highest forward for 2016. He will keep DPP as he played off half forward for the majority of the year. He averaged 119 for the year in AXV.

Blakely averaged 94. He is an undoubted talent and could be a beast. But for the time being he isn't in the ballpark of Lyons.

Nat 15 for Brandon Jack who didnt play a game in 2016 is clear overs for me as well.

No he didn't, JL played on ball most of the year as one of the leading clearance players in the team!

+ I'm not expecting Lyons to keep dpp, pure mid next year and although I think he would make a really good forward, he will become if he hasn't already a pure clearance player. MID only

[Ricochet]

This is fantastic, the increased discussion and airing of opinions can only help to reinvigorate this comp.

The more coaches that come out and air their views the better the better for us all.

If anyone has an opinion put it out there, whether it has to do with the current discussions or is something completely new.

Yep 100% mate.  Good or bad, the more we thrash it out the better the comp will be

[Rusty00]

Quick update on players that have been enquired about as I think there's been some pms I haven't responded to over the last week or so due to work and sickness.

My main aim is to work a deal/s to obtain a youngish premo or near-premo mid

Rhys Stanley - have had a fair bit of interest in him with his all important ruck/fwd dpp.
Lachie Weller - have had some interest and potentially close to a deal involving him. Will really only move him in a package that involves obtaining a better or more advanced player
ND7 - will only move in a package for a premo/near-premo mid
Marley Williams - 23yo def who averaged 98 last season so happy to keep. Have had some interest in him though so can be moved.
Tom Bell - like Marley, this year was wrecked with injuries, but averaged 119 last season so more than happy to keep. Can be moved though and have had some interest in him.
Tom Campbell - Would prefer to keep him as he showed this year he can score well when he plays. Have had some interest though and would probably only move in a package for a premo/near-premo mid
David Mackay - only missed games in a full strength Crows team when injured this year so JS is good. Averaged 98 to be solid midfield depth. Probably won't cost a lot to move.

[nostradamus]

Seems fine to me. Blakely is only going to get more opportunity Ross will play him and he's a ball magnet (although handball happy). Lyons is pretty good too.


I don't understand this blocked trades stuff. No one trades with the intention to make their teams worse, and being able to oversell your players is part of the management!

Lyons was the 18th highest forward for 2016. He will keep DPP as he played off half forward for the majority of the year. He averaged 119 for the year in AXV.

Blakely averaged 94. He is an undoubted talent and could be a beast. But for the time being he isn't in the ballpark of Lyons.

Nat 15 for Brandon Jack who didnt play a game in 2016 is clear overs for me as well.

No he didn't, JL played on ball most of the year as one of the leading clearance players in the team!

+ I'm not expecting Lyons to keep dpp, pure mid next year and although I think he would make a really good forward, he will become if he hasn't already a pure clearance player. MID only

this harks back to the opinions of so many this time last year about Dusty and Motlop  ::)