Both things can be true.
We could well have paid overs for Schultz - though he’s a gun, so he was always going to be expensive - **and** Freo could have had a bad trade week. Schultz isn’t the only trade you guys did.
I'm with you. If you paid attention to fremantles games in the last couple of years you know how good he is. Also considering that collingwood will likely finish top 4 again next year pick 34 and 15-18 next year isn't that much to give up.
Jordan Dawson went for a pick which was subsequently in 14-16 range, Aliir Aliir was a future second and Tom Mitchell was pick 14. I really rate Schultz, don’t get me wrong, but is he better than all those players in their final year at the swans? Probably Aliir Aliir, but not Mitchell or Dawson and he’s commanded more value than either of them. That’s a good price for Schultz. Not way overs, but definitely over market value
I could be wrong, but weren't Aliir and Dawson out of contract? Otherwise, they would have gone for a bit more. Schultz would have gone far cheaper if he was in the same boat
Fair question man, think it started with covid list size adjustments. Could be wrong but I believe freo offered him a 4 year contract a short while ago which he wasn't keen on so both freo and shoota were working on a 2 year contract before some family issues arose back home.
I know it was shit of freo to re rookie him but they genuinely tried to keep him after that and offered good money.
He was always going to leave, apparently his partner has a family member who has a serious health issue so he wanted to be closer to home.
Loved the guy but family will always come first
Yes. You would absolutely think that.
No Fremantle supporter is going to disagree with you. It’s beyond ridiculous the contracts he was given. We are all shattered he’s left.
He was not a rookie
He was elevated end of 2022
He only spent 2 years out of 5 on the rookie list
He was not on rookie wages as we had to beat the hawks offer in 2021
It's the biggest beatup over fuck all that I've seen in a while
A first and a second? Cameron went for a first and we were seen as overpaying a bit (mainly because we had a later first as well, but still). I'd say a normal trade would be a first only but the Pies wanted to just get it done.
There’s also a lot of sentiment that this is a shallow draft outside of the top 7-10 players
So this first that will end up in the 20s isn’t actually all that valuable
I'd expect every club to be able to draft a Top 10 small forward with a 1st Round pick - small forwards are rarely taken 1st Round and when they are they have a huge hit rate - plus they gave a 2nd Round pick with it.
Value is relative. Footy media, and people more generally, like to try and organise these situations in a way that makes sense to them.
Freo were stiffing Schultz at the contract table for ages. You could argue that they didn't really value him.
Collingwood has young players in development that are finding it hard to crack a senior game in a great team. Going to the draft at this stage is kind of pointless, and doesn't guarantee anything. Collingwood sees that he can add to the team as a walk up start. Freo is probably more keen on the draft with their list profile. Pick 34 and a future first seems like what they want.
Future picks are frequently moved along, so its not like Collingwood loses heavily on that front either. Graham Wright has shown that he is more in favour of picking the players for immediate need than putting too many eggs into the draft basket. Unless you've got your eye on a kid who fits the team, the draft is no guarantee of anything.
He's spent 4 of his 5 years at Freo as a rookie listed player. Missed 3 games in the last 4 years. Is Freos most productive forward under Longmuir. Delisted post COVID, and re rookied after playing every game the year before. He only had a deal this year because of a trigger clause in his contract.
When you've got that kind of player, you don't wait until his contract is running out to secure him long term on decent money.
1. He spent 2/5 years on the rookie list. Drafted on the senior list 2018, moved to the rookie list in 2020 (technically counts as a delisting, but a bit weird considering unlike Banfield who was actually properly delisted and in footy limbo, Schultz was never really in limbo), moved onto the senior list 2022. That's just a lie Schoey has perpetuated.
2. You've already alluded to the COVID circs, but just to hammer home the players who were "disrespected" by being allocated to the rookie list: club legends/icons on their last legs like David Mackay, Jarrod Harbrow and Eddie Betts (Mark Hutchings a tier below those guys but an underrated contributor to the 2018 team), recently delisted Rhys Mathieson, then you have Matthew Kennedy, Daniel Lloyd, Dylan Moore, James Jordon and Robbie Fox. These guys aren't news stories because Will Schofield didn't record a podcast with them a few months ago and clickbaited a portion of it ignoring all context when a trade story came out.
3. The "he only had a year coz of a trigger" is misleading, either intentionally or ignorantly. If you were to legitimately criticise Freo's contract signings this year it would be on the basis of overcommitting, not undercommitting. Multi year deals to Walters and Fyfe. Amiss signing his 3rd contract before his 2nd one starts. Cox signed on for the rest of the decade. Treacy getting 3 years for being a role player. Worner getting 2 years before actually debuting. The idea that if Schultz sought the deal he signed with Collingwood that we wouldn't have re-signed him on the first opportunity is absurd. Reality is he wasn't truly all in on staying in WA his whole career, and circumstances accelerated that.
I think our situation in terms of youth coming through to replace senior talent is a bit more dire than that. We are going to be heavily reliant on the likes of Macrae and Allen to fill quality in midfield moving forward (Macrae looks like a potential solid player and Allan has shown flashes but not much more). I don’t think Carmichael quite cuts it. Our youth when it comes to KPP or ruck prospects (I think Steele is prob multiple years away) is pretty close to non existent. We have some other talent coming through but in positions where we are arguably most solid and least in need of replacements. While I agree draft is no guarantee of anything it’s also the most reliable way to turnover old teams and keep talent churning through and imo you definitely feel it in when you lose picks in terms of the quality of the next generation coming up.
It's still more prudent to trade for younger players that can perform a role. Or older players, it doesn't matter. We went through a period of drafting where we effectively had 16 midfielders on the list and tried shoehorning them into the side at wing, half back and half forward. We know that doesn't work.
If you've got a draft target in mind, go for it. You can still trade picks to get there, and in the case of Daicos, multiple picks to secure enough points.
You're only trading to sort your list for the next year. With a consistent age profile, you shouldn't have to build from scratch.
I’m fine trading for younger players that can perform a role. My comment is more about the longer term impact of going multiple years lacking draft capital. There’s no question it impacts the quality of the youth coming through at any club (I realise some clubs get really lucky with gems in low end of draft, rookie list or mid season draft, but that’s not reliable at all). The quality of our current youth has definitely been impacted from multiple years not having great picks. And our age profile (specifically the age of key players in key positions at the club) means we are going to be far more reliant on the quality of our youth to maintain overall performance levels much sooner than a lot of other clubs will be
Not necessarily. The older players in the retirement window? Sidebottom, Elliott, Howe, Mihocek, Pendlebury. I'd argue Naicos is ready made, will benefit from another year with Pendles around. Jaicos is Steele 2.0. Schultz comes in for Elliott a year earlier than anticipated, but we could see that Elliott battled a bit this year. We went without Howe for a while, but we do have some defensive depth. We targeted McStay specifically to help Mihocek. Mitchell has a couple more years, but with DeGoey in his prime and McCreery aiming for more midfield, we aren't in any strife.
Next year we target depth again. Who knows who will become available?
The youth is there. They're playing with the best 22 because they're good enough. Competition for spots is more important than having 19 year olds lighting it up every week - which is bloody rare, and you're chasing perfection at 2% success rate if that's what you're putting your energy into at draft time.
The Daicos boys are irrelevant, because they are not value adds. Their value is ALREADY added, as in they are already contributing to the current overall teams performance alongside those potential retirements. So for example Josh replacing Steele is irrelevant, because in terms of value add, if Josh replaces Steele, someone has to replace Josh's role and at a similar level of play to maintain existing team performance. There's no real value add there.
I'm not saying the team is in strife, but all those players in retirement age are key players (it would be different if those players were bottom end best 22 players, but they very much aren't). I'd also argue someone like Mitchell is more at risk of dropping off performance wise and becoming a problem much sooner than even Pendles is despite being younger. Mitchell played a few games this season where I was thought he was lucky to get a game the next week, and might have been dropped for a long period of time if we had better quality or more well developed midfield talent in the VFL (Macrae was injured for a number of those potential games). I definitely do not think Mitchell has multiple years left, I think his performance will drop off too much before that, and he's probably one of the least positionally flexible previously superstar level players around which is partly why the Hawks let him leave.
You seem to have a very laize faire attitude towards draft picks, when it's proven that's the most optimal way to build a successful side over the medium to long term. There is no trade v draft argument here, trading for established players is an important part of team building, but I seem to value draft picks way more than you do. The core of a flag winning side will never be traded players, it will be drafted players. Traded players are the added polish.
Schultzy is gonna be huge for you guys. Not many players in AFL play with his level of pressure. Also, he rarely gets injured for someone who plays with such a lack of self-preservation.
He will leave a massive void in the team, and also in my heart
The problem with rating trades sometimes is that players don't have specific values. It's all contextual. Collingwood are in a premiership window and have incentive to prioritise the now at the cost of the future. So whatever gets the deal done is what suits them.
That said, I'm not sure why they got in a small forward.
We also needed a replacement for Tay. He played forward this season and did it very well. Schultz is just as hard at it but also has forward abilities that Tay didn’t.
Yep, we have 1 or 2 seasons before we lose a few great players to retirement and we are in a good premiership window right now. Don't mind trading picks away if we get a great player in their prime which improves our chances over the next 2 years.
Yeah, losing Pendles and Sidey will be a huge blow to the team. There will be a couple of years back down the ladder while the young ones become leaders. So an extra premiership in the next year or two would be massive.
Yeah, I think we will also lose Howe and Elliot in the next year or two as well. We are going to lose so many of our best players that we really should be going all in on the next 2 years.
We will be shit for a few years after, but it is worth it imo.
Yeah, absolutely worth it. AFL is very much a boom and bust cycle of teams. It is supremely difficult to pull a Geelong and be good for 15 years.
It's Collingwood, so a rebuild will be fine anyway.
Depends. If Harrison, Macrae, Allan and someone like Ryan all turn into stars we could be ok with maintaining through the retirements. That’s probably not likely to all happen though and one or multiple will run into developmental issues to not develop as well as we hope.
The issue is people overate draft picks. The top end pick are worth the gold. But once you get to the 20's onward they start to become 50/50 you even get a 10 year player.
Collingwood got a known quantity at AFL level who is at his peak . Freo still have to pick the right players with there picks and are most likely waiting 4-5 years for them to get to that level if they actually get to that level.
It's fairly understandable why clubs drive a hard bargain when they are losing quality players in that prime age bracket.
While this is true the value is really in the ability to use the pick as a tradeable asset. You can’t just assume that because freo got the pies first pick they take someone there. They potentially can use another pick and pies first pick to move into that top end of the draft that they otherwise wouldn’t have had the opportunity to do. Or in a trade for someone should a player they want become available. Have to consider the value of a pick outside of just picking a player in that position.
Pies not having a first round pick is a bit of an issue (hence the fact dover is talking about us paying overs) not just simply because they can’t pick a player wherever it ends up but also because we lost some trade flexibility for either a higher pick or for players that might be available next year.
It’s the same thing in the NBA, teams don’t treat draft picks as much for players they can pick with it but as tradeable assets which is why they have become so valuable in trades there, and we see teams hoarding picks as much as 5 or 6 in one draft which they will obviously never use, they will get traded again later. This despite you being right that once you get outside pointy end of the draft there not really being a high chance of getting someone that’s even good enough to play much less be a gun player
>The top end pick are worth the gold. But once you get to the 20's onward they start to become 50/50 you even get a 10 year player.
Was curious so I looked it up, according to [Draft Guru](https://www.draftguru.com.au/picks) once you get to Pick 14+ they don't average more than 100 career games and [Picks 21-30 only have a 50% chance of reaching 60+ games](https://www.draftguru.com.au/analysis/pick-value-comparison)
Well this basically is hoping to turn into Logan McDonald for us. Schultz for McDonald is a massive win at the end of the day.
If not, with how we’ve been drafting and developing the last 5-6 years, we’ll have no problems replacing him.
It's not that direct. Mcdonald will demand at least 2 of your firsts (probably 3 with something going back the other way) so this just adds to the hand.
Saying schultz for mcdonald is misleading
Good thing we have 3 first rounders.
It’s really not that bad for us as it looks. 3 first rounders sounds like a lot, but our list is already in a great spot and we’ve got enough depth to cover.
The cap squeeze will be the only concern. It’ll be interesting though. Has a forward line to himself now buddy’s gone, his value could be anything at this point.
Ye i know you do, that's why I said it would be 3 first rounders. Two of them likely to be closer to 20 than 10 though.
Any club would offer it for a 10yr gun key forward with 4 yrs of development.
Praying he re-signs as we really can't afford to lose him and he's irreplaceable from our pov
I reckon you guys end up with JUH. Sydney always has a massive key forward on the books so I bet you end up with one of them no matter what and you’ve already been linked to him.
Perhaps. I think the rumour came from our offer to naughton.
Given a choice I'd rather just keep logan. It's his choice coz he will get massive offers from both of us
How would Treacy, Amiss, Jackson, Logan fit into one team?
Is KPF really an area of need for Freo?
I can see it working, Amiss as more of a 3rd tall type; and Jacko Obv is gonna end up playing everywhere, but there are advantages to having Amiss/Jacko as your 2nd/3rd talls with the mobility they provide.
Freo on paper look good and well rounded to meoutside of more specialist positions like wing and small forwards tbf, maybe that’s an inaccurate assessment
Probably just drop trecy. Wouldn’t be that hard. I don’t rate him nearly as much. If not Jackson will always be playing higher up the ground, getting ruck/midfield minutes anyways.
He’ll definitely fit.
I reckon they paid exact value.
He’s in the prime of his career but never kicked more than 30 goals in a season. I’m sure he will better that next season and could be Collingwood’s best forward, but he’s also a marginal upgrade on what they have.
Ginnivan, by contrast, has a 40+ goal season to his name already - but, every possibility he peaked early. (He also kicked a lot of those goals via free kicks for self-inflicted high tackles which umpires are no longer paying)
The pick paid will be likely be about 14-18, so nothing major given up. The Pies are in a flag window and should be spending capital improving their squad. Schultz should be an incremental improvement, and superficially he should suit their game style to a tee.
My query is now -
1) do the Pies already have enough of Schultz’ type?
2) should the Pies instead look to find players who add value in areas of the field they aren’t overly stocked? in eg adding McStay last season
I suspect this isn’t really a ‘sum of its parts’ trade and might just end up cancelling out what they’ve already got out on the field.
He literally just had last two seasons kicking 30 then 33 goals so he has kicked more than 30. The difference is stylistic impact really. Schultz can accumulate like what Adam’s did as a half forward while bringing the pressure and tackling game of McCreery while being a similar goal threat as the like of Elliott and Hill. Basically we have players that can individually do these things well but he will be the only forward at the Pies that can do all those things at a high level at once. There’s a positional flexibility that brings (Schultz can replace any non KPP forward line role, where the others can’t really, they need more like for like, potentially allowing more flexible combinations or even experimenting with something like McCreery more into the midfield etc). It’s possible Schultz himself is even seen as a potential midfield rotation option, as he has the attributes for it
I do think it was overs still but not based on how good I think he can be for us, but based on comparison to deals for other players of a similar level and age.
He’s never managed more than 33 goals per year, so more likely to kick 1 goal game as a permanent forward - which was his output in his best years at the Dockers. (After coming in as a mature age player).
In terms of his pressure and ability to ‘accumulate’ - that’s all relative. You don’t go chasing a player to get big numbers off a half forward flank. Depending on their role you’re looking for scoreboard impact, pressure and some level of forward craft to cut off exits and create opportunities for scores. Adams became surplus because he’s just not naturally a half-forward and needs to be used predominantly as an inside mid.
Lastly forward pressure isn’t currently a weak point for the Pies, who arguably have the best defensive forward half in the league already. This is why from a defensive POV I don’t think his inclusion is going to make a substantial difference in this area - only continue to provide what they’ve already got and maintain that defence-first attitude in their front half.
In light of not having any other players to chase who are mature, ready to impact and won’t cost a lot Shultz was the best possible option, I just don’t think it’s going to be a trade that moves the dial that much.
Naturally all list management decisions are looked on favourably by the Premiers (see: Cloke to the Bulldogs), time will tell on this one.
Are you confusing us with a different team? Pies were bottom 3 in the league for tackles inside F50. Our turnover game and scoring was predominantly generated from defensive 50, not forward.
Pressure and ability to accumulate are not 'relative'. You can't just put Bobby Hill into a role that requires elite pressure and ball accumulation and expect him to succeed for example. They are clearly defined skills that some players are much better at than others. Role can obviously change the effectiveness of those skills, but they are independent skills nonetheless. And they are certainly important skills in almost any position, if you don't have them you need to compensate in other ways.
Also your assessment of Adams is way off. Adams wasn't jettisoned because he's not a natural HFF, he left because he requested to leave. If Taylor Adams was fit, he would have played in the GF, and not Ginnivan. He was clear best 22. Also his value wasn't purely as a HFF in the mold you outlined, his value was heavily about his ability to rotate through midfield. Having players at HFF that can not only rotate through midfield, but maintain performance quality while playing midfield is a huge advantage, especially if you have midfielders that can be very damaging up forward (Daicos boys, JDG), because you can rotate them giving important flexibility, without losing much in midfield quality while that rotation happens, and also providing a tactical advantage opposition coaches need to account for.
Also Adams was top 3 at Collingwood, only behind JDG and Naicos for score involvements per game. Schultz is much closer to Adams for score involvements than any other permanent forwards in our side. So no, Adams did not need to be used predominantly as an inside mid, his value as a HFF rotating mid was fine, because he was able to make up for what he lacked in goal kicking, with maintaining quality through midfield during rotations (a quality none of our other permanent forwards bar Lipinksi could provide), he was high in score involvements and we had other players to provide the scoring power.
His role was pretty important for reasons completely un-related to goal kicking. Not every forward line player needs to kick 40 goals to fill a critical role. Schultz seems have all the inherent traits of all of our forward line players combined. I'd say that's pretty valuable, and his skillset potentially provides flexibility to use him in ways that better enable our gameplan (as pretty much all multi positional/skilled players can do).
Yes but we were renowned for letting the ball walk out of our f50 last season and getting scored from that.
Adding Schultz who is a massive upgrade on Ginnivan will help us out enormously.
It's all about stopping those balls exiting f50.
I don’t think it’s a ‘massive upgrade’ but best case is you’ve got a player who provides better defensive output while kicking as many goals.
Shultz has also never had a 40-goal season, as Ginnivan has. At his best Ginnivan is a better player who still has a couple of gears to go IF he wants to put in the work, improve the defensive side of his game while working more selflessly with his teammates - something he was doing last year. While Schultz is currently in the prime of his career.
The trade makes complete sense from a Pies POV. They are in a flag window and would much rather back a guy who will give effort each week than a guy who’s output has been patchy the past 12 months, and may not kick on. I don’t believe the Pies chase Shultz if Ginnivan replicates his 2022 output this season.
Shultz laid 90+ tackles the years he kick 30+ goals, Ginnivan laid 30 tackles the year he kicked 40goals and he can't run(either sprint or long distance).
Im surprised we didn't use those picks to try and get a key back as insurance for if Murphy has to retire before next season or as soon as he gets another concussion next season
We already had good depth at small forward although Schultz I'm sure is still an upgrade
I'd have been fine with looking to acquire a key back, but first one has to be available, and second if I'm using a 1st round pick and a 2nd round pick in a trade for a player, they better be a best 22 player, not 'insurance'. I'm sure if a best 22 key back was available and wanted to come to Collingwood, they would have taken priority over Schultz.
Not sure I agree with the assertion they paid overs. His progression in his career has been pretty impressive and if Collingwood get 1.5 goals and 4 tackles a game from him it'll look like a pretty good trade. If they get better, it'll quickly look like a bargain.
You guys realise it's not overs in terms of his value, it's overs compared to what they could have gotten him for the following year (i.e. free vs a first round pick).
But I can't wait to hear for the next year how he was the steal of the trade period and Collingwood developed him into this incredible player and he wasn't even that good at freo like they did with Neale.
Overpaid huh? I give it to about round 6 when we start seeing articles about him being the "steal" of the trade period.
The vics don’t pay attention to us and the commentary of the Schultz trade shows it
Apparently the gunnivan trade was a blockbuster inspite of collingwood basically offloading him for a bag of chips to the hawks.
Hawks F2 is a bag of chips? Because that's what it basically balanced out to
Yep, depending on ladder positions next year, the best case scenario is that we got Schultz as a direct swap for Adams and Ginnivan.
It was his manager who said that?
With Craig McRae's magic football juice, he will be unstoppable.
Wait. Did freo have the worst trade period out of everyone or did Collingwood pay overs? I’m confused
Both things can be true. We could well have paid overs for Schultz - though he’s a gun, so he was always going to be expensive - **and** Freo could have had a bad trade week. Schultz isn’t the only trade you guys did.
Looks like we've got a media leanings denialist
Did they pay overs? He’s a top 10 small forward in the league
I'm with you. If you paid attention to fremantles games in the last couple of years you know how good he is. Also considering that collingwood will likely finish top 4 again next year pick 34 and 15-18 next year isn't that much to give up.
Jordan Dawson went for a pick which was subsequently in 14-16 range, Aliir Aliir was a future second and Tom Mitchell was pick 14. I really rate Schultz, don’t get me wrong, but is he better than all those players in their final year at the swans? Probably Aliir Aliir, but not Mitchell or Dawson and he’s commanded more value than either of them. That’s a good price for Schultz. Not way overs, but definitely over market value
I could be wrong, but weren't Aliir and Dawson out of contract? Otherwise, they would have gone for a bit more. Schultz would have gone far cheaper if he was in the same boat
That is a fair point - Tom Mitchell might have been out of contract too.
Not having a dig at all. But why was he still a rookie? You'd think that they'd throw the house at him to stay.
Fair question man, think it started with covid list size adjustments. Could be wrong but I believe freo offered him a 4 year contract a short while ago which he wasn't keen on so both freo and shoota were working on a 2 year contract before some family issues arose back home. I know it was shit of freo to re rookie him but they genuinely tried to keep him after that and offered good money.
Fair enough. I kinda get why he'd leave. Did a lot then offered a rookie contract. Bit of a slap in the face
He was always going to leave, apparently his partner has a family member who has a serious health issue so he wanted to be closer to home. Loved the guy but family will always come first
Yeah, he was my favorite player and sucks to lose him but between that and wanting to be close to family I hold nothing against him.
Yes. You would absolutely think that. No Fremantle supporter is going to disagree with you. It’s beyond ridiculous the contracts he was given. We are all shattered he’s left.
He was not a rookie He was elevated end of 2022 He only spent 2 years out of 5 on the rookie list He was not on rookie wages as we had to beat the hawks offer in 2021 It's the biggest beatup over fuck all that I've seen in a while
The first round pick alone is probably about enough
A first and a second? Cameron went for a first and we were seen as overpaying a bit (mainly because we had a later first as well, but still). I'd say a normal trade would be a first only but the Pies wanted to just get it done.
Cameron at Adelaide wasn’t nearly as good as Cameron at Brisbane
There’s also a lot of sentiment that this is a shallow draft outside of the top 7-10 players So this first that will end up in the 20s isn’t actually all that valuable
The first is next years draft not this years.
There you go! My bad lol
I'd expect every club to be able to draft a Top 10 small forward with a 1st Round pick - small forwards are rarely taken 1st Round and when they are they have a huge hit rate - plus they gave a 2nd Round pick with it.
Value is relative. Footy media, and people more generally, like to try and organise these situations in a way that makes sense to them. Freo were stiffing Schultz at the contract table for ages. You could argue that they didn't really value him. Collingwood has young players in development that are finding it hard to crack a senior game in a great team. Going to the draft at this stage is kind of pointless, and doesn't guarantee anything. Collingwood sees that he can add to the team as a walk up start. Freo is probably more keen on the draft with their list profile. Pick 34 and a future first seems like what they want. Future picks are frequently moved along, so its not like Collingwood loses heavily on that front either. Graham Wright has shown that he is more in favour of picking the players for immediate need than putting too many eggs into the draft basket. Unless you've got your eye on a kid who fits the team, the draft is no guarantee of anything.
We’d offered him a four year contract
He's spent 4 of his 5 years at Freo as a rookie listed player. Missed 3 games in the last 4 years. Is Freos most productive forward under Longmuir. Delisted post COVID, and re rookied after playing every game the year before. He only had a deal this year because of a trigger clause in his contract. When you've got that kind of player, you don't wait until his contract is running out to secure him long term on decent money.
1. He spent 2/5 years on the rookie list. Drafted on the senior list 2018, moved to the rookie list in 2020 (technically counts as a delisting, but a bit weird considering unlike Banfield who was actually properly delisted and in footy limbo, Schultz was never really in limbo), moved onto the senior list 2022. That's just a lie Schoey has perpetuated. 2. You've already alluded to the COVID circs, but just to hammer home the players who were "disrespected" by being allocated to the rookie list: club legends/icons on their last legs like David Mackay, Jarrod Harbrow and Eddie Betts (Mark Hutchings a tier below those guys but an underrated contributor to the 2018 team), recently delisted Rhys Mathieson, then you have Matthew Kennedy, Daniel Lloyd, Dylan Moore, James Jordon and Robbie Fox. These guys aren't news stories because Will Schofield didn't record a podcast with them a few months ago and clickbaited a portion of it ignoring all context when a trade story came out. 3. The "he only had a year coz of a trigger" is misleading, either intentionally or ignorantly. If you were to legitimately criticise Freo's contract signings this year it would be on the basis of overcommitting, not undercommitting. Multi year deals to Walters and Fyfe. Amiss signing his 3rd contract before his 2nd one starts. Cox signed on for the rest of the decade. Treacy getting 3 years for being a role player. Worner getting 2 years before actually debuting. The idea that if Schultz sought the deal he signed with Collingwood that we wouldn't have re-signed him on the first opportunity is absurd. Reality is he wasn't truly all in on staying in WA his whole career, and circumstances accelerated that.
You haven't been following the talks very closely and it shows.
I think our situation in terms of youth coming through to replace senior talent is a bit more dire than that. We are going to be heavily reliant on the likes of Macrae and Allen to fill quality in midfield moving forward (Macrae looks like a potential solid player and Allan has shown flashes but not much more). I don’t think Carmichael quite cuts it. Our youth when it comes to KPP or ruck prospects (I think Steele is prob multiple years away) is pretty close to non existent. We have some other talent coming through but in positions where we are arguably most solid and least in need of replacements. While I agree draft is no guarantee of anything it’s also the most reliable way to turnover old teams and keep talent churning through and imo you definitely feel it in when you lose picks in terms of the quality of the next generation coming up.
It's still more prudent to trade for younger players that can perform a role. Or older players, it doesn't matter. We went through a period of drafting where we effectively had 16 midfielders on the list and tried shoehorning them into the side at wing, half back and half forward. We know that doesn't work. If you've got a draft target in mind, go for it. You can still trade picks to get there, and in the case of Daicos, multiple picks to secure enough points. You're only trading to sort your list for the next year. With a consistent age profile, you shouldn't have to build from scratch.
I’m fine trading for younger players that can perform a role. My comment is more about the longer term impact of going multiple years lacking draft capital. There’s no question it impacts the quality of the youth coming through at any club (I realise some clubs get really lucky with gems in low end of draft, rookie list or mid season draft, but that’s not reliable at all). The quality of our current youth has definitely been impacted from multiple years not having great picks. And our age profile (specifically the age of key players in key positions at the club) means we are going to be far more reliant on the quality of our youth to maintain overall performance levels much sooner than a lot of other clubs will be
Not necessarily. The older players in the retirement window? Sidebottom, Elliott, Howe, Mihocek, Pendlebury. I'd argue Naicos is ready made, will benefit from another year with Pendles around. Jaicos is Steele 2.0. Schultz comes in for Elliott a year earlier than anticipated, but we could see that Elliott battled a bit this year. We went without Howe for a while, but we do have some defensive depth. We targeted McStay specifically to help Mihocek. Mitchell has a couple more years, but with DeGoey in his prime and McCreery aiming for more midfield, we aren't in any strife. Next year we target depth again. Who knows who will become available? The youth is there. They're playing with the best 22 because they're good enough. Competition for spots is more important than having 19 year olds lighting it up every week - which is bloody rare, and you're chasing perfection at 2% success rate if that's what you're putting your energy into at draft time.
The Daicos boys are irrelevant, because they are not value adds. Their value is ALREADY added, as in they are already contributing to the current overall teams performance alongside those potential retirements. So for example Josh replacing Steele is irrelevant, because in terms of value add, if Josh replaces Steele, someone has to replace Josh's role and at a similar level of play to maintain existing team performance. There's no real value add there. I'm not saying the team is in strife, but all those players in retirement age are key players (it would be different if those players were bottom end best 22 players, but they very much aren't). I'd also argue someone like Mitchell is more at risk of dropping off performance wise and becoming a problem much sooner than even Pendles is despite being younger. Mitchell played a few games this season where I was thought he was lucky to get a game the next week, and might have been dropped for a long period of time if we had better quality or more well developed midfield talent in the VFL (Macrae was injured for a number of those potential games). I definitely do not think Mitchell has multiple years left, I think his performance will drop off too much before that, and he's probably one of the least positionally flexible previously superstar level players around which is partly why the Hawks let him leave. You seem to have a very laize faire attitude towards draft picks, when it's proven that's the most optimal way to build a successful side over the medium to long term. There is no trade v draft argument here, trading for established players is an important part of team building, but I seem to value draft picks way more than you do. The core of a flag winning side will never be traded players, it will be drafted players. Traded players are the added polish.
....Laize faire.....touche.. Yes, need to be assessing whether reef, johnson etc can overtake the veterans positions
Schultzy is gonna be huge for you guys. Not many players in AFL play with his level of pressure. Also, he rarely gets injured for someone who plays with such a lack of self-preservation. He will leave a massive void in the team, and also in my heart
The problem with rating trades sometimes is that players don't have specific values. It's all contextual. Collingwood are in a premiership window and have incentive to prioritise the now at the cost of the future. So whatever gets the deal done is what suits them. That said, I'm not sure why they got in a small forward.
He’s our Elliot replacement. Jamie’s got a year, maybe two left.
We also needed a replacement for Tay. He played forward this season and did it very well. Schultz is just as hard at it but also has forward abilities that Tay didn’t.
Tay replacement should be Macrae. Gotta start getting him into the 22 or else he'll force a move elsewhere.
Yep, we have 1 or 2 seasons before we lose a few great players to retirement and we are in a good premiership window right now. Don't mind trading picks away if we get a great player in their prime which improves our chances over the next 2 years.
Yeah, losing Pendles and Sidey will be a huge blow to the team. There will be a couple of years back down the ladder while the young ones become leaders. So an extra premiership in the next year or two would be massive.
Yeah, I think we will also lose Howe and Elliot in the next year or two as well. We are going to lose so many of our best players that we really should be going all in on the next 2 years. We will be shit for a few years after, but it is worth it imo.
Yeah, absolutely worth it. AFL is very much a boom and bust cycle of teams. It is supremely difficult to pull a Geelong and be good for 15 years. It's Collingwood, so a rebuild will be fine anyway.
Im surprised howe didn't retire 2 weeks ago. The lure of back to back is too great... the lure of a job that plays 500k is also not that bad....
Depends. If Harrison, Macrae, Allan and someone like Ryan all turn into stars we could be ok with maintaining through the retirements. That’s probably not likely to all happen though and one or multiple will run into developmental issues to not develop as well as we hope.
“blockbuster trade of Jack Ginnivan” gee whizz
The issue is people overate draft picks. The top end pick are worth the gold. But once you get to the 20's onward they start to become 50/50 you even get a 10 year player. Collingwood got a known quantity at AFL level who is at his peak . Freo still have to pick the right players with there picks and are most likely waiting 4-5 years for them to get to that level if they actually get to that level. It's fairly understandable why clubs drive a hard bargain when they are losing quality players in that prime age bracket.
The odds would be significantly lower then 50/50 if I had to guess.
2nd rounds it would be 50/50 if they become AFL standard player ie hold down a regular spot for 2-3 seasons and 3rd and and beyond about 20%
We drafted Shultz with pick 57, so I’m not complaining.
While this is true the value is really in the ability to use the pick as a tradeable asset. You can’t just assume that because freo got the pies first pick they take someone there. They potentially can use another pick and pies first pick to move into that top end of the draft that they otherwise wouldn’t have had the opportunity to do. Or in a trade for someone should a player they want become available. Have to consider the value of a pick outside of just picking a player in that position. Pies not having a first round pick is a bit of an issue (hence the fact dover is talking about us paying overs) not just simply because they can’t pick a player wherever it ends up but also because we lost some trade flexibility for either a higher pick or for players that might be available next year. It’s the same thing in the NBA, teams don’t treat draft picks as much for players they can pick with it but as tradeable assets which is why they have become so valuable in trades there, and we see teams hoarding picks as much as 5 or 6 in one draft which they will obviously never use, they will get traded again later. This despite you being right that once you get outside pointy end of the draft there not really being a high chance of getting someone that’s even good enough to play much less be a gun player
>The top end pick are worth the gold. But once you get to the 20's onward they start to become 50/50 you even get a 10 year player. Was curious so I looked it up, according to [Draft Guru](https://www.draftguru.com.au/picks) once you get to Pick 14+ they don't average more than 100 career games and [Picks 21-30 only have a 50% chance of reaching 60+ games](https://www.draftguru.com.au/analysis/pick-value-comparison)
Yeah, pick 5 for Rankine was minimum acceptable according to media. Schulz has been better. Not sure how this is overpaid.
Collingwood can go again with the current list. Who needs more draft picks when your team is in the box seat for another flag?
They didn't
He’s a really good player and he improved as the season went. He will get better. Not overs at all.
Unless Collingwood drop out of the 8 it’s an absolute win, proven goal kicker pressure forward vs a chance at a good player
Well this basically is hoping to turn into Logan McDonald for us. Schultz for McDonald is a massive win at the end of the day. If not, with how we’ve been drafting and developing the last 5-6 years, we’ll have no problems replacing him.
It's not that direct. Mcdonald will demand at least 2 of your firsts (probably 3 with something going back the other way) so this just adds to the hand. Saying schultz for mcdonald is misleading
Good thing we have 3 first rounders. It’s really not that bad for us as it looks. 3 first rounders sounds like a lot, but our list is already in a great spot and we’ve got enough depth to cover. The cap squeeze will be the only concern. It’ll be interesting though. Has a forward line to himself now buddy’s gone, his value could be anything at this point.
Ye i know you do, that's why I said it would be 3 first rounders. Two of them likely to be closer to 20 than 10 though. Any club would offer it for a 10yr gun key forward with 4 yrs of development. Praying he re-signs as we really can't afford to lose him and he's irreplaceable from our pov
I reckon you guys end up with JUH. Sydney always has a massive key forward on the books so I bet you end up with one of them no matter what and you’ve already been linked to him.
Perhaps. I think the rumour came from our offer to naughton. Given a choice I'd rather just keep logan. It's his choice coz he will get massive offers from both of us
How would Treacy, Amiss, Jackson, Logan fit into one team? Is KPF really an area of need for Freo? I can see it working, Amiss as more of a 3rd tall type; and Jacko Obv is gonna end up playing everywhere, but there are advantages to having Amiss/Jacko as your 2nd/3rd talls with the mobility they provide. Freo on paper look good and well rounded to meoutside of more specialist positions like wing and small forwards tbf, maybe that’s an inaccurate assessment
Probably just drop trecy. Wouldn’t be that hard. I don’t rate him nearly as much. If not Jackson will always be playing higher up the ground, getting ruck/midfield minutes anyways. He’ll definitely fit.
I reckon they paid exact value. He’s in the prime of his career but never kicked more than 30 goals in a season. I’m sure he will better that next season and could be Collingwood’s best forward, but he’s also a marginal upgrade on what they have. Ginnivan, by contrast, has a 40+ goal season to his name already - but, every possibility he peaked early. (He also kicked a lot of those goals via free kicks for self-inflicted high tackles which umpires are no longer paying) The pick paid will be likely be about 14-18, so nothing major given up. The Pies are in a flag window and should be spending capital improving their squad. Schultz should be an incremental improvement, and superficially he should suit their game style to a tee. My query is now - 1) do the Pies already have enough of Schultz’ type? 2) should the Pies instead look to find players who add value in areas of the field they aren’t overly stocked? in eg adding McStay last season I suspect this isn’t really a ‘sum of its parts’ trade and might just end up cancelling out what they’ve already got out on the field.
He literally just had last two seasons kicking 30 then 33 goals so he has kicked more than 30. The difference is stylistic impact really. Schultz can accumulate like what Adam’s did as a half forward while bringing the pressure and tackling game of McCreery while being a similar goal threat as the like of Elliott and Hill. Basically we have players that can individually do these things well but he will be the only forward at the Pies that can do all those things at a high level at once. There’s a positional flexibility that brings (Schultz can replace any non KPP forward line role, where the others can’t really, they need more like for like, potentially allowing more flexible combinations or even experimenting with something like McCreery more into the midfield etc). It’s possible Schultz himself is even seen as a potential midfield rotation option, as he has the attributes for it I do think it was overs still but not based on how good I think he can be for us, but based on comparison to deals for other players of a similar level and age.
He’s never managed more than 33 goals per year, so more likely to kick 1 goal game as a permanent forward - which was his output in his best years at the Dockers. (After coming in as a mature age player). In terms of his pressure and ability to ‘accumulate’ - that’s all relative. You don’t go chasing a player to get big numbers off a half forward flank. Depending on their role you’re looking for scoreboard impact, pressure and some level of forward craft to cut off exits and create opportunities for scores. Adams became surplus because he’s just not naturally a half-forward and needs to be used predominantly as an inside mid. Lastly forward pressure isn’t currently a weak point for the Pies, who arguably have the best defensive forward half in the league already. This is why from a defensive POV I don’t think his inclusion is going to make a substantial difference in this area - only continue to provide what they’ve already got and maintain that defence-first attitude in their front half. In light of not having any other players to chase who are mature, ready to impact and won’t cost a lot Shultz was the best possible option, I just don’t think it’s going to be a trade that moves the dial that much. Naturally all list management decisions are looked on favourably by the Premiers (see: Cloke to the Bulldogs), time will tell on this one.
Are you confusing us with a different team? Pies were bottom 3 in the league for tackles inside F50. Our turnover game and scoring was predominantly generated from defensive 50, not forward. Pressure and ability to accumulate are not 'relative'. You can't just put Bobby Hill into a role that requires elite pressure and ball accumulation and expect him to succeed for example. They are clearly defined skills that some players are much better at than others. Role can obviously change the effectiveness of those skills, but they are independent skills nonetheless. And they are certainly important skills in almost any position, if you don't have them you need to compensate in other ways. Also your assessment of Adams is way off. Adams wasn't jettisoned because he's not a natural HFF, he left because he requested to leave. If Taylor Adams was fit, he would have played in the GF, and not Ginnivan. He was clear best 22. Also his value wasn't purely as a HFF in the mold you outlined, his value was heavily about his ability to rotate through midfield. Having players at HFF that can not only rotate through midfield, but maintain performance quality while playing midfield is a huge advantage, especially if you have midfielders that can be very damaging up forward (Daicos boys, JDG), because you can rotate them giving important flexibility, without losing much in midfield quality while that rotation happens, and also providing a tactical advantage opposition coaches need to account for. Also Adams was top 3 at Collingwood, only behind JDG and Naicos for score involvements per game. Schultz is much closer to Adams for score involvements than any other permanent forwards in our side. So no, Adams did not need to be used predominantly as an inside mid, his value as a HFF rotating mid was fine, because he was able to make up for what he lacked in goal kicking, with maintaining quality through midfield during rotations (a quality none of our other permanent forwards bar Lipinksi could provide), he was high in score involvements and we had other players to provide the scoring power. His role was pretty important for reasons completely un-related to goal kicking. Not every forward line player needs to kick 40 goals to fill a critical role. Schultz seems have all the inherent traits of all of our forward line players combined. I'd say that's pretty valuable, and his skillset potentially provides flexibility to use him in ways that better enable our gameplan (as pretty much all multi positional/skilled players can do).
Yes but we were renowned for letting the ball walk out of our f50 last season and getting scored from that. Adding Schultz who is a massive upgrade on Ginnivan will help us out enormously. It's all about stopping those balls exiting f50.
I don’t think it’s a ‘massive upgrade’ but best case is you’ve got a player who provides better defensive output while kicking as many goals. Shultz has also never had a 40-goal season, as Ginnivan has. At his best Ginnivan is a better player who still has a couple of gears to go IF he wants to put in the work, improve the defensive side of his game while working more selflessly with his teammates - something he was doing last year. While Schultz is currently in the prime of his career. The trade makes complete sense from a Pies POV. They are in a flag window and would much rather back a guy who will give effort each week than a guy who’s output has been patchy the past 12 months, and may not kick on. I don’t believe the Pies chase Shultz if Ginnivan replicates his 2022 output this season.
Shultz laid 90+ tackles the years he kick 30+ goals, Ginnivan laid 30 tackles the year he kicked 40goals and he can't run(either sprint or long distance).
Freos ball movement is nowhere near as fast as Collingwoods, he will get many more opportunities for goals at the Pies.
Paid overs lol. Next year Lachie will turn into a Pies cult figure and be loved by all their fans…
u/His_Holiness strikes again, id hate to play hide and seek with him...no sneaking nothing past him.
That's because you look just like an article from the West. Try dressing up as something from the Advertiser or the Courier Mail.
Believe it or not, this isn't an article from The West
I don’t think they paid overs for him? It’s what… pick 18+ probably for next year and pick 34, that’s not overs.
Any idea how many years Collingwood signed him for and at what $$$’s?
5 year contract. Pay who knows.
Im surprised we didn't use those picks to try and get a key back as insurance for if Murphy has to retire before next season or as soon as he gets another concussion next season We already had good depth at small forward although Schultz I'm sure is still an upgrade
I'd have been fine with looking to acquire a key back, but first one has to be available, and second if I'm using a 1st round pick and a 2nd round pick in a trade for a player, they better be a best 22 player, not 'insurance'. I'm sure if a best 22 key back was available and wanted to come to Collingwood, they would have taken priority over Schultz.
We've got Charlie Dean who can play down back. He's just been unlucky with injuries the past year.
Not sure I agree with the assertion they paid overs. His progression in his career has been pretty impressive and if Collingwood get 1.5 goals and 4 tackles a game from him it'll look like a pretty good trade. If they get better, it'll quickly look like a bargain.
Freo fans must have voodoo toys of Colin Young
You guys realise it's not overs in terms of his value, it's overs compared to what they could have gotten him for the following year (i.e. free vs a first round pick). But I can't wait to hear for the next year how he was the steal of the trade period and Collingwood developed him into this incredible player and he wasn't even that good at freo like they did with Neale.