Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

With the price on Lever's head, we need to let this one through to the keeper.

He's not in the top 5 in the competition. He's a very good second or third tall defender that's playing in a top side.

Let melscum throw away 2 first rounders on him because that's what the crows want and nothing less. Word is that the deal is almost done anyway so I don't see why we should even bother getting involved in a bidding war. We should really focus our attention elsewhere like the draft for example.

I really only started paying real attention to Lever since learning we were a chance to score him. The way he intercept marks, tackles and shows poise (beyond his years mind you) reminds me a touch of Clement. *sigh*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtMZJ8cSs1s

The kid's only young and shows so much potential beyond what he can do already. I'd like us to get him, but only for the right price.

Starting to look like he is off to the Dees Sadly

Wouldn't even give up the 6 for him. For a non KPP, no way!

Member 7167 wrote:

E wrote:

Member 7167 wrote: We would be insane to go after him at this asking price.

remind me the asking price for Dangerfield again?????

This is what the Cats gave up for Danger.

The Cats have given up young midfielder Dean Gore as well as picks No.9 and No.28 to snare the superstar midfielder.

Danger as demonstrated last weekend is a match winner and is now a Brownlow medallist.

Can the same be said for Lever who is essentially a backman?

Exactly. The only counter to that is that Melbourne might believe that given their awesome young list, they might be a Jake Lever away from being premiership contenders. And they might be right. They also will weaken the team that stands between them and the 2018 flag.

Trades often appear lopsided becasue the two teams are on different time horizons. So a team like GWS has won the Adams/Shaw trade in its first three years but i think we will win it for the next 7.

The Dangerfield deal can't be used as comparison for pretty much any other. He was a free agent and could have simply left for a compo pick. Cats just saved some cash by dealing for him (believe maybe that Dangerfield wanted Adelaide to get some return as well), they did not give up market value in the deal.

Also, just because Adelaide start off asking for two firsts, doesn't mean this is what they'll get.

FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote:Wouldn't even give up the 6 for him. For a non KPP, no way!

We used pick 6 to draft Scharenberg, a half back flanker.

A perfect lesson for why you wouldn't do that again!

Seriously though, I'm fairly certain we were expecting more from that pick 6 than Lever's current value. Probably give that one another year to play out before making any judgement.

I still believe Darcy Moore will end up being a CHB and from what I've seen Sam McLarty has the potential to hold down FB. I'd rather see us chase Tom Lynch.

Rick wrote:I still believe Darcy Moore will end up being a CHB and from what I've seen Sam McLarty has the potential to hold down FB. I'd rather see us chase Tom Lynch.

We all would, but it aint going to happen. Heck, i'd love a forward line of Tex Walker, Lance Franklin and Lynch, but that doesn't mean i'm going to shut down scenarios that might exist in the real world that doesnt revolve around that scenario.

I also cant see the need for having Moore at CHB when we have Scharenberg, Howe and Langdon (modern day backmen). If we have one shut down tall back in McLarty, Moore would be wasted back there and would make us top heavy.

I'd rather see Moore with a license to be the long lead up forward or modern day follower or wing with a license to roam but with the ability to make runs forward to be one of our options as a target up forward. Kind of like the way the hawks use Roughhead.

FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote:A perfect lesson for why you wouldn't do that again!

Seriously though, I'm fairly certain we were expecting more from that pick 6 than Lever's current value. Probably give that one another year to play out before making any judgement.

i dont know Lever very well, but all reports suggest he is a young star in the making (with 80 games under his belt. that is exactly the kind of kid i'd like to get with the 6 pick (identifying a talent that project to be as good as Lever would probably be a good get at 6). i doubt that would get it done.

^ I guess it comes down to the old 'go for best available' vs 'go for what you need' argument. If you were going for best available then he's probably worth a pick 6 or more. I'd prefer to go for what we need and I don't think he's it

AN_Inkling wrote:The Dangerfield deal can't be used as comparison for pretty much any other. He was a free agent and could have simply left for a compo pick. Cats just saved some cash by dealing for him (believe maybe that Dangerfield wanted Adelaide to get some return as well), they did not give up market value in the deal.

Also, just because Adelaide start off asking for two firsts, doesn't mean this is what they'll get.

Everybody pays market value. The point is do you want to throw a spanner in the works of an anticipated Adelaide - Melbourne trade involving Lever, by offering our no.6 and no.36 draft picks for him and wait and see if Adelaide takes the bait. We don't even know how committed Lever is about wanting to join Melbourne and whether Adelaide wants to deal with us.

Interesting thing about draft picks... they hold the most value, before they are used...

Within the top 10 of every draft, using hindsight, there are always 2-3 players who are considered complete busts, and rarely would the order of the remaining 7 or 8 be the same. On this basis, a top 10 pick gives you a 70 - 80% chance of obtaining a player deserving of such status (it could easily be argued this is less but I am only considering complete busts, not those who are serviceable but not stars). So, even with all the time and resources put into evaluating prospects, it is not an exact science.

From 10 onward, picks have diminishing returns, and while people will site some gems discovered in the later stages of the draft, there are far more that don't make it than do.

Now, there is the argument of best available -v- need, and my opinion is that within the top 10, you must take best available - to enhance your chance of achieving that 70-80%. Beyond 10 I would consider needs based drafting due to the diminishing return.

On this basis, lets look at Lever. In hindsight, he is without question one of the top 10 players of his draft class, so this is a big tick and already has the benefit of hindsight. He is also not that far removed in time from his draft year.

Posters here seem to be of mixed opinion in relation to our need for a KPD, and of whether Lever is in fact a KPP. He has been likened in style to a young version of and anointed the air apparent to Alex Rance; so regardless of positional viewpoint, I think everyone would find room for Rance in our best 22. Our current KPDs are aging Dunn and Goldy (both still with plenty to offer) and the third tall of Howe. There has also been a call for Goldy to be used as a defensive forward, but on current list profile, this is unlikely.

For mine, Lever fills both a need and is worthy of a top 10 pick. He is also only 21 so fits within the age profile of our next premiership team/window, whether that be next season (he was all Australian squad 2017) or in the next ten years.

Giving up 6 and 36 for him (if the Crows were agreeable to it) - a need and a player deserving of top 10 status - seems to be to a lay down misere.