Reckon the dogs might be prepared to up there offer to Jakey after today.
Very positive, pro-Carlisle article on the club web site.... does have the taste of being a fluff piece so beware.Interim Essendon Coach Matthew Egan has commended Jake Carlisle for the way he has conducted himself in recent weeks.
Carlisle came within metres of being the hero for the Bombers last night as his last second snap went through for a behind in the sideâs two-point loss to Gold Coast.
âAs soon as (Tom) Lynch went behind the ball, he put himself one out of the square and just tried to make Lynch defend one on one,â Egan told 3AW today.
âHe was actually out on the lead, I reckon he had five or six metres on the lead and the kick just went over his head.â
The match against the Suns came after a week where there were claims of discontent, but Egan said Carlisle has been excellent to work with.
âHe was pretty upset when the article came out the other day,â he said.
âHe was walking off the ground and he swore or something like that but it was nothing against the club.
âI used to sit on the bench at Geelong when I was development coach and I used to get yelled at by Joel Corey for sitting in his chair.
âThen Iâd get yelled by (Jimmy) Bartel for putting the drink bottle in the wrong place.
âItâs what happens when you want to win and you get frustrated and I think thatâs all that happened with Jake.â
Carlisle is out of contract at the end of the season and given his ability to play at either end of the ground, his services are likely to be highly sought after.
But Egan said Carlisleâs actions have been positive.
âIâve been his line coach for the last four weeks and heâs been an absolute pleasure to coach,â he said.
âHeâs always in my office, heâs wanting to learn, heâs really engaged with the group.
âIf he was disengaged, if he didnât want to talk with players Iâd get that feeling (that he may leave) but heâs the opposite.
âAfter the loss last week (against Adelaide) we caught up as a group and he was probably the last to leave. Heâs in a really good frame of mind.
âThere is a fair bit going on at our club as well so I can understand itâs a big decision for him.
âHis actions so far and what Iâve seen I can only speak pretty positively about him.â
Before evaluating this article, it would be useful to get some perspectiveâŚ
For example, what was Egan or the Club saying this time just last year about Paddy?
agreed very refreshin fromythe man whos not known for it
This guys headspace is farked. Needs to sign and concentrate on winning games of footy commensurate with his prodigous talents rather than behaving like a drama queen. Tom lynch edged him today.Wow. First time I've seen you type so neatly....
I honestly think he doesn't know what he wants to do. I have no information but from what a lot of other people say that's what it seems to me.
I have no idea either, but he doesnât strike me as the sort of guy that will base it solely on money. So Iâm not convinced at all that Carlton are truly on the radar.
No, that was Crameri's cost between EFC and Bulldogs with the restrictions the rules the market enforced. It was his price. But if the market is inefficient (which you agree the AFL one isn't) the price is not an indicator of the commodities' true worth.Which is why I said 'the market' being the one which has considerable rules, constraints of trade, inefficiencies and restrictions on the buyers ability to bid a theoretical fair value.In economics a market is any structure that allows buyers and sellers to exchange any type of goods, services and information. That's it!Agreed. AFL trades break so many rules/assumptions behind what a "market" - in economic terms - requires to create fair and worthwhile prices that to say that the price that is paid is fair if the market paid it is ridiculous. Market assumptions like all players having equal power, smooth utilisation and cost curves, the ability to properly assess an object's value, a deep pool of participants, etc. As well as what you pointed out.Okay, let's say it's a market. The club getting the player is the buyer, no problem there. Who is the seller? The player who decides which customer to sell to, or the club that receives the price paid by the buyer? When the recipient of the payment is distinct from the person who makes the decision to sell, and the person who decides on the customer, you've broken the market model.Your wrong it is a market place.The AFL trade system isn't a market in any meaningful sense, and that's not what worth means anyway. Agree to disagree I guess.As I said, if Carlton offer him enough dosh he locks them in & dicks us, that's what he's worth, that's what the market will offer.If he was a commodity in a free market that would be true, but most commodities don't get to decide which customer they get sold to. If he nominates Carlton and goes to the PSD, that doesn't make him worth nothing. It just means we got nothing for him.I remain staggered by the idea that anyone thinks Carlisle isn't worth at least pick 5. If he was from any other team and available in the draft, you'd happily spend our pick 4 on him.He's worth what the market will offer.The idea that the AFL trading system is a market and therefore any price is fair is just ignorance of basic economics.
A market doesnât have to conform to rules, structures, value propositions or any other model you want to come up with.
You can say that the market of player exchange is inefficient and currently failing but you cannot say it is not a market, because it is.
That is technically true. But if a market doesnât have the right characteristics then its prices wonât reflect the commodities true value. Hence why arbitrage opportunities exist - because things are selling at prices other than their true worth.Coming back to your original statement âHeâs worth what the market will offerâ, that is only true in a fair, functional, efficient, , etc. market. Which AFL trading clearly isnât.
The price we get wonât necessarily be indicative of his true worth. As I pointed out above, if he went in the ND, Gold Coast would almost certainly use pick #3 on him. So that is a good indication of a minimum of what his worth would be in a âfreerâ market, and the ND is hardly that!
Abitrage opportunities exist in all markets, their existence in number and value are indicators of its efficiency. In this case they exist because of the constraints in exchange, mainly draft picks available to clubs. Crameri is a good example where the dogs could have made an arbitrage gain from having picks that didnât reflect his perceived value. But realistically with our win on Zerret is has a perception of fair value. Had we failed that perception could be different. Either way peoples perceptions of value are not necessarily a true reflection of the actual markets determination of value, Crameri is Pick 26, that what the exchange was so that is his value at that time.
Whilst all of these intricacies help define the market they donât change the fact it is a market. It also doesnât change the fact that the market value is the value, that being the final agreed price of exchange within that market place with all the inefficiencies, rules etc.
In the end what ever the exchange ends up being is the market value. Any perceived arbitrage in the exchange remains subjective.
Arbitrage was simply an example of when markets are failing, since where it exists there is simultaneously two prices, and hence what the market is offering is not reflective of actual underlying worth. The point is a market that doesnât work doesnât indicate true worth, so to use the price agreed in AFL negotiations as an indicator of worth, or if a result was fair, is silly.
i think pick 5 alone would be fair and we should just take it at the first opportunity and get down to doing other business. We could try and weasel a 2nd rd pick from next year too as gravy but i don't think we'll get it.Try and package melk with a 3rd pick to get melbourneâs 2nd (melk isnât worth a 2nd round pick outright IMO). See if looney will come as a free. If stants walks (which would be very regretable) we probably get a 2nd pick too.
hypothetically they could leave us with 4,5, 23, 24(stanton?)26(melk).
We then have some chips to play with and we could make a play for Zac Clarke at freo with a 2nd rounder or maybe even Bennell. Did i read GC have activated an end of 1st round comp pick? can they be traded? if so maybe theyâd be interested in upgrading it for bennell and their second round pick
that would leave us with
4, 19, 22, 23, 24, Bennell and clark (or looney on a free). If disco values a pick inside 15 we could try and bundle a couple of 2nd round picks into 1. maybe we want to try and bundle them into a 1st round pick next year to st kilda say who will be looking for pick to trade to the pies.
4 (francis), 14, 19, 23, Bennell and clark
our 4th round pick is used to upgrade smack and that is 7 players onto the senior list.
having gone through all that i think iâd be happiest if stants stayed and we ended up with 4, 5, 23, 26, Looney on a free and smack with our 4th round pick(i think bennel is a pipe dream)
what would yall think of giving up pick 5 for Bennel and their 22?
Bennell is going to Freo IMO. I would not give up pick 5 for him either.
Iâd take this yearâs 2nd rounder and next yearâs first rounder for Carlisle if we rated next yearâs draft. St K will think they will go up the ladder, but there is a chance it all falls apart for them as well. Riewoldt, Montagna etc are old. Theyâll add Carlisle but we all know what that means. The kids might kick on, but theyâre also primed to stagnate. St Kilda over performed this year and everyone thinks theyâll keep improving, but Iâll back them to be bottom 6 again.
And we get the extra 2nd rounder this year to either trade or use.
So 5 or 24+Rd1(2016)
Theyâre my preferences.
I'd be looking to take advantage of future picks.. It's a new toy for list managers... in US clubs have mortgaged their future for deals (somewhat unsuccessfully) - perhaps we can take advantage of a "win now" mentality? Maybe it'd be better if we go for the Saints 2016 1st & 2nd round pick instead of 5?You can't trade your 1st and other future picks. If you're trading next year's picks you can EITHER trade your 1st rounder OR one or both of your 2nd and 3rd rounders.
One of the AFLâs brakes on teams destroying themselves.
Saints will part with Pick 5 after posturing for a couple of days.. the question is whether we can add any more value to the trade or if it is a straight swap.
I wouldnât try and squeeze more out of it. Get Pick 5 and move on. Get it done early too to see if we canât on-trade Pick 5 for a quality playerâŚ
Saints will part with Pick 5 after posturing for a couple of days.. the question is whether we can add any more value to the trade or if it is a straight swap.I wouldnât try and squeeze more out of it. Get Pick 5 and move on. Get it done early too to see if we canât on-trade Pick 5 for a quality playerâŚ
Getting it done quickly might also shut the media up about us being difficult to deal with.
I suspect the Saints will want it done quickly too so that they can get on with the trades that are equally important to them but will be harder to resolve.
In economics a market is any structure that allows buyers and sellers to exchange any type of goods, services and information. That's it!Agreed. AFL trades break so many rules/assumptions behind what a "market" - in economic terms - requires to create fair and worthwhile prices that to say that the price that is paid is fair if the market paid it is ridiculous. Market assumptions like all players having equal power, smooth utilisation and cost curves, the ability to properly assess an object's value, a deep pool of participants, etc. As well as what you pointed out.Okay, let's say it's a market. The club getting the player is the buyer, no problem there. Who is the seller? The player who decides which customer to sell to, or the club that receives the price paid by the buyer? When the recipient of the payment is distinct from the person who makes the decision to sell, and the person who decides on the customer, you've broken the market model.Your wrong it is a market place.The AFL trade system isn't a market in any meaningful sense, and that's not what worth means anyway. Agree to disagree I guess.As I said, if Carlton offer him enough dosh he locks them in & dicks us, that's what he's worth, that's what the market will offer.If he was a commodity in a free market that would be true, but most commodities don't get to decide which customer they get sold to. If he nominates Carlton and goes to the PSD, that doesn't make him worth nothing. It just means we got nothing for him.I remain staggered by the idea that anyone thinks Carlisle isn't worth at least pick 5. If he was from any other team and available in the draft, you'd happily spend our pick 4 on him.He's worth what the market will offer.The idea that the AFL trading system is a market and therefore any price is fair is just ignorance of basic economics.
A market doesnât have to conform to rules, structures, value propositions or any other model you want to come up with.
You can say that the market of player exchange is inefficient and currently failing but you cannot say it is not a market, because it is.
That is technically true. But if a market doesnât have the right characteristics then its prices wonât reflect the commodities true value. Hence why arbitrage opportunities exist - because things are selling at prices other than their true worth.Coming back to your original statement âHeâs worth what the market will offerâ, that is only true in a fair, functional, efficient, , etc. market. Which AFL trading clearly isnât.
The price we get wonât necessarily be indicative of his true worth. As I pointed out above, if he went in the ND, Gold Coast would almost certainly use pick #3 on him. So that is a good indication of a minimum of what his worth would be in a âfreerâ market, and the ND is hardly that!
Which is why I said âthe marketâ being the one which has considerable rules, constraints of trade, inefficiencies and restrictions on the buyers ability to bid a theoretical fair value.
Abitrage opportunities exist in all markets, their existence in number and value are indicators of its efficiency. In this case they exist because of the constraints in exchange, mainly draft picks available to clubs. Crameri is a good example where the dogs could have made an arbitrage gain from having picks that didnât reflect his perceived value. But realistically with our win on Zerret is has a perception of fair value. Had we failed that perception could be different. Either way peoples perceptions of value are not necessarily a true reflection of the actual markets determination of value, Crameri is Pick 26, that what the exchange was so that is his value at that time.
Whilst all of these intricacies help define the market they donât change the fact it is a market. It also doesnât change the fact that the market value is the value, that being the final agreed price of exchange within that market place with all the inefficiencies, rules etc.
In the end what ever the exchange ends up being is the market value. Any perceived arbitrage in the exchange remains subjective.
Yup, wouldn't be upset if the club took this approach. Get the deal done early and move on to planning our new line up.Saints will part with Pick 5 after posturing for a couple of days.. the question is whether we can add any more value to the trade or if it is a straight swap.I wouldnât try and squeeze more out of it. Get Pick 5 and move on. Get it done early too to see if we canât on-trade Pick 5 for a quality playerâŚ
The thing about a negotiation is you donât start the negotiation where you want to end up.
We should ask for pick 5 and a 2nd rounder from next year and settle for pick 5.
This is why the saints are saying âpick 5 is not up for grabsâŚâ as that is what they will end up settling for.
i think pick 5 alone would be fair and we should just take it at the first opportunity and get down to doing other business. We could try and weasel a 2nd rd pick from next year too as gravy but i donât think weâll get it.
Try and package melk with a 3rd pick to get melbourneâs 2nd (melk isnât worth a 2nd round pick outright IMO). See if looney will come as a free. If stants walks (which would be very regretable) we probably get a 2nd pick too.
hypothetically they could leave us with 4,5, 23, 24(stanton?)26(melk).
We then have some chips to play with and we could make a play for Zac Clarke at freo with a 2nd rounder or maybe even Bennell. Did i read GC have activated an end of 1st round comp pick? can they be traded? if so maybe theyâd be interested in upgrading it for bennell and their second round pick
that would leave us with
4, 19, 22, 23, 24, Bennell and clark (or looney on a free). If disco values a pick inside 15 we could try and bundle a couple of 2nd round picks into 1. maybe we want to try and bundle them into a 1st round pick next year to st kilda say who will be looking for pick to trade to the pies.
4 (francis), 14, 19, 23, Bennell and clark
our 4th round pick is used to upgrade smack and that is 7 players onto the senior list.
having gone through all that i think iâd be happiest if stants stayed and we ended up with 4, 5, 23, 26, Looney on a free and smack with our 4th round pick(i think bennel is a pipe dream)
what would yall think of giving up pick 5 for Bennel and their 22?
i think pick 5 alone would be fair and we should just take it at the first opportunity and get down to doing other business. We could try and weasel a 2nd rd pick from next year too as gravy but i don't think we'll get it.Try and package melk with a 3rd pick to get melbourneâs 2nd (melk isnât worth a 2nd round pick outright IMO). See if looney will come as a free. If stants walks (which would be very regretable) we probably get a 2nd pick too.
hypothetically they could leave us with 4,5, 23, 24(stanton?)26(melk).
We then have some chips to play with and we could make a play for Zac Clarke at freo with a 2nd rounder or maybe even Bennell. Did i read GC have activated an end of 1st round comp pick? can they be traded? if so maybe theyâd be interested in upgrading it for bennell and their second round pick
that would leave us with
4, 19, 22, 23, 24, Bennell and clark (or looney on a free). If disco values a pick inside 15 we could try and bundle a couple of 2nd round picks into 1. maybe we want to try and bundle them into a 1st round pick next year to st kilda say who will be looking for pick to trade to the pies.
4 (francis), 14, 19, 23, Bennell and clark
our 4th round pick is used to upgrade smack and that is 7 players onto the senior list.
having gone through all that i think iâd be happiest if stants stayed and we ended up with 4, 5, 23, 26, Looney on a free and smack with our 4th round pick(i think bennel is a pipe dream)
what would think up giving up pick 5 for Bennel and their 22?
Talent-wise there is no doubt he is worth Pick 5, it would probably be a steal too if the penny drops. He is easily a 10+ year player. However, the off-field stuff and his professionalism in general diminish his value significantly. They wonât admit it, but theyâd bite our hand off if we offered Pick 5 (assuming we receive it for Carlisle) and it would easily surpass anything that Freo would put up. 5 for Bennell and 22 would be decent, we get something else back because of the risk we take on.
Iâd be looking to take advantage of future picks⌠Itâs a new toy for list managers⌠in US clubs have mortgaged their future for deals (somewhat unsuccessfully) - perhaps we can take advantage of a âwin nowâ mentality? Maybe itâd be better if we go for the Saints 2016 1st & 2nd round pick instead of 5?
Saints will part with Pick 5 after posturing for a couple of days⌠the question is whether we can add any more value to the trade or if it is a straight swap.
In economics a market is any structure that allows buyers and sellers to exchange any type of goods, services and information. That's it!Agreed. AFL trades break so many rules/assumptions behind what a "market" - in economic terms - requires to create fair and worthwhile prices that to say that the price that is paid is fair if the market paid it is ridiculous. Market assumptions like all players having equal power, smooth utilisation and cost curves, the ability to properly assess an object's value, a deep pool of participants, etc. As well as what you pointed out.Okay, let's say it's a market. The club getting the player is the buyer, no problem there. Who is the seller? The player who decides which customer to sell to, or the club that receives the price paid by the buyer? When the recipient of the payment is distinct from the person who makes the decision to sell, and the person who decides on the customer, you've broken the market model.Your wrong it is a market place.The AFL trade system isn't a market in any meaningful sense, and that's not what worth means anyway. Agree to disagree I guess.As I said, if Carlton offer him enough dosh he locks them in & dicks us, that's what he's worth, that's what the market will offer.If he was a commodity in a free market that would be true, but most commodities don't get to decide which customer they get sold to. If he nominates Carlton and goes to the PSD, that doesn't make him worth nothing. It just means we got nothing for him.I remain staggered by the idea that anyone thinks Carlisle isn't worth at least pick 5. If he was from any other team and available in the draft, you'd happily spend our pick 4 on him.He's worth what the market will offer.The idea that the AFL trading system is a market and therefore any price is fair is just ignorance of basic economics.
A market doesnât have to conform to rules, structures, value propositions or any other model you want to come up with.
You can say that the market of player exchange is inefficient and currently failing but you cannot say it is not a market, because it is.
That is technically true. But if a market doesnât have the right characteristics then its prices wonât reflect the commodities true value. Hence why arbitrage opportunities exist - because things are selling at prices other than their true worth.
Coming back to your original statement âHeâs worth what the market will offerâ, that is only true in a fair, functional, efficient, , etc. market. Which AFL trading clearly isnât.
The price we get wonât necessarily be indicative of his true worth. As I pointed out above, if he went in the ND, Gold Coast would almost certainly use pick #3 on him. So that is a good indication of a minimum of what his worth would be in a âfreerâ market, and the ND is hardly that!
Agreed. AFL trades break so many rules/assumptions behind what a "market" - in economic terms - requires to create fair and worthwhile prices that to say that the price that is paid is fair if the market paid it is ridiculous. Market assumptions like all players having equal power, smooth utilisation and cost curves, the ability to properly assess an object's value, a deep pool of participants, etc. As well as what you pointed out.Okay, let's say it's a market. The club getting the player is the buyer, no problem there. Who is the seller? The player who decides which customer to sell to, or the club that receives the price paid by the buyer? When the recipient of the payment is distinct from the person who makes the decision to sell, and the person who decides on the customer, you've broken the market model.Your wrong it is a market place.The AFL trade system isn't a market in any meaningful sense, and that's not what worth means anyway. Agree to disagree I guess.As I said, if Carlton offer him enough dosh he locks them in & dicks us, that's what he's worth, that's what the market will offer.If he was a commodity in a free market that would be true, but most commodities don't get to decide which customer they get sold to. If he nominates Carlton and goes to the PSD, that doesn't make him worth nothing. It just means we got nothing for him.I remain staggered by the idea that anyone thinks Carlisle isn't worth at least pick 5. If he was from any other team and available in the draft, you'd happily spend our pick 4 on him.He's worth what the market will offer.The idea that the AFL trading system is a market and therefore any price is fair is just ignorance of basic economics.
In economics a market is any structure that allows buyers and sellers to exchange any type of goods, services and information. Thatâs it!
A market doesnât have to conform to rules, structures, value propositions or any other model you want to come up with.
You can say that the market of player exchange is inefficient and currently failing but you cannot say it is not a market, because it is.
Ok so Billlings and Saints pick 1 next year - fair enough....!Not Billings, but what about Markworth. Good size, hasnât played for them yet either due to his injured ACL, severe hamstring strain and dislocated shoulder since being recruited in 2011. Good size and weight and I seem to recall reasonably highly touted on this very forum. Was a late second round pick at 35 but many seemed to think he was a potential late first rounder, early second. So, Markworth and next years first rounder, who would consider that.
The guy doesnât sound injured so much as completely broken.