The animus is over, for now. Melbourne have secured the services of Jake Lever, their young key position piece, giving up a bounty to add one of the final pieces of their aggressive rebuild.
Melbourne has exchanged their 2017 first-round pick (currently pick 10), their 2018 first round pick (which would project in a similar range to this year’s pick right now) and a future fourth-round pick for Adelaide’s Jake Lever, Adelaide’s 2017 pick 35 and their 2018 third round pick.
The wantaway key defender, who completed a three-year stint with the Crows with a borderline All Australian season, now forms part of a youthful core of blue-chip talent at the Dees.
Melbourne has Lever, Christian Petracca and Jesse Hogan all in the same age bracket – a key forward, key defender and primo midfielder to build a team around for the next decade.
The Dees were reportedly in love with Lever in the 2014 draft, but chose to draft Petracca and midfielder Angus Brayshaw instead. It cost a pretty penny – which we’ll get to in a moment – but now they’ve got their set.
Lever has put together a very strong three years for a young key position player, his reputation as an outstanding aerialist growing this season as he averaged 9.5 intercept possessions in 20 games.
His 190 intercepts were second to Richmond’s Alex Rance, a player Lever is often compared to as a measure of how high his ceiling extends. Melbourne’s new piece makes quality decisions and possesses an above average right boot, and does his best work flying across a marking contest to chop off the play.
There’s little doubt Lever is an outstanding player for his age. Champion Data’s AFL Player Ratings have him as the best key defender for his age ever – albeit their history extends to 2010.
But this does not consider role, and it’s where this deal gets a little murky. Lever has been Adelaide’s third defender for most of his career, and spends plenty of time as a spare man when the Crows look to manufacture an extra behind the ball. That is sure to inflate his intercept statistics.
Melbourne will be procuring his services to eventually act as their number one defender. It’s not clear he can’t grow into this role, but it is no sure thing. It won’t happen overnight, either.
The Dees’ defence does need some help. They were no better than average last season, conceding 88 points per game, and a hair more against the top sides (90, ranked eighth). Stopping teams from scoring is driven more by scheme and team defence, but having a Jedi Knight patrolling the back 50 can buttress even the shakiest of teams.
Lever’s ascension will force some change in Melbourne’s defensive mix. One of Oscar McDonald, Tom McDonald and Sam Frost will be punted out of defensive 50 – the prime candidate for me would be Tom McDonald, who will instead take his rightful place as the centre half forward no one knew we needed. It puts Melbourne’s desire to offload Jack Watts into sharp focus.
A Lever-McDonald swap doesn’t instantly improve Melbourne’s projected defensive prowess – particularly if he isn’t able to handle the load as the number one man straight away.
But this is all about growth for the Dees, and being in a position where a clutch of highly rated players can grow in concert. It is a gamble on Lever’s upside, albeit one where the odds are stacked in Melbourne’s favour.
Which gets to the bounty the Dees gave up. For all the bluff and bluster – and boy wasn’t there a lot of it – Adelaide ultimately got their inflated asking price: two first round picks.
There are pick swaps down the line that may help soften the edge for the Dees – Adelaide’s pick 35 could yield a handy role player based on history – but make no mistake: Melbourne has sold the farm for this guy.
It harkens back to Collingwood’s 2015 trade for Adam Treloar, where the Pies gave pick eight, pick nine and pick 65 to the GWS Giants for Treloar and pick 33.
It looked a lot at the time, and the Pies picked Treloar on his potential, which depending on your perspective he may or may not have yet to live up to.
It affords the Crows some added space to wheel and deal their way into an extra piece to bolster their already very strong best 22.
There is already talk Bryce Gibbs may suddenly be a little more available than he was at the start of trade period, when the Blues and Crows ruled out a deal.
The Dees pulled the Lever in this trade, but there’s little doubt as to who was the puppet master.
Adelaide have come out of a heated negotiation, with a player who was out of contract and had all-but narrowed his list of suitors down to one, with the very best possible deal.
The diminishing value of draft picks continues at a pace. If Lever is really a young Alex Rance, for Melbourne it was a price worth paying.
Harro05
Roar Rookie
It’s easy in hindsight but only now can we see all factors of this deal played out and if MFC “sold the farm”. When Melbourne traded two first round picks for Jake Lever in 2017, the Dees also acquired Harrison Petty in that trade with pick 35. Those picks ended up at Carlton, who used them for Lochie O’Brien and Liam Stocker. Just goes to show the MFC list managers and recruiting team know better than all the supporters and the experts who had their say on how the deal didn’t make sense to them. Jake Lever was a key part of the premiership drought breaking win. So you would have to say that’s a win. But now with Harry Petty also a premiership back man now becoming a forward threat this article hasn’t aged well at all. It’s easy to write critically at trade time but the reality is deals take a long time to reveal their true balance. There does feel that like fish and chip paper people can write whatever they want as it’s forgotten never to be made accountable. Apologies are in order here.
Tony
Guest
I read your comment and thought you were talking about Collingwood in your second paragraph.
Rex
Guest
spot on - every club has one (Tippett, Hartlett, Daisy etc) we dont want / or need another though in Gibbs
Geoff from Bruce Stadium
Guest
Great reasoned sensible post Redbacks fan. While Crows fan were devastated that Dangerfield went home he served the club well in the 7 and a bit years he played with them and left with the club's blessing. The Tippett saga has been well documented. He was being paid extra to stay with the Crows which ended up burning the club in terms of lost draft picks for breaching the salary cap and he left to chase even bigger money at the Swans. While it was disappointing to see him go I'm sure the Swans will be regretting the decision to recruit him given how little he has delivered compared with their other big money signing in Buddy Franklin. The Lever situation is again disappointing but one can understand the young man chasing bigger dollars to play elsewhere if it is offered and equally understand the Crows not wanting to pay overs. You wonder how close they got to matching the offer. The disappointment is compounded by the fact that the Crows know how good a player Lever so they were keen to retain him but in the end they were powerless to stop him from going and achieved a pretty good deal in terms of draft picks as compensation. Time for all to move on.
Slane
Guest
Nice one Sammy!
GJ
Guest
Hahaha .. no nod from me. Feel free to give yourself a pat on the back though. I think you need to get back under the Canning Hwy Bridge and cast another line in the water.
Don Freo
Guest
That's what opinions are about. Thank you for the "sage" nod. I'm chuffed!
Redbacks fan
Guest
As an Adelaide supporter, I am honestly not concerned about player retention at the club for a few reasons: 1) The players who have walked out have all been high profile players but in total there haven't been considerably more than most clubs have had. For example, from 2014-17 Adelaide have lost 3 players who they would have rathered keep (Lever, Cameron, Dangerfield). In the same time Geelong - who have a reasonable reputation for retaining players - have lost 4 player who they would have rathered keep (Motlop, Caddy, Christensen and Varcoe) and I haven't included Vardy and Walker who I am not sure how keen Geelong were to retain at the time. 2) The reasons why players have left can largely be explained by a bit of bad luck and sensible list management. Adelaide were unlucky that both Bock and Davis both received huge offers from expansion clubs where some teams had no players targeted. Gunston was a homesick kid, and although it would be better if young players fell in love with the club enough that they didn't get homesick, this does happen to every team occasionally. Dangerfield unfortunately was always going to head back to Geelong to start a family and I believe this would have happened no matter which of the 16 other clubs he got drafted to. Tippett and Lever both chased money and it was smart list management to not match the offers they received elsewhere, and although at the time I wanted both players to stay, neither player deserves to be the highest paid player on the Adelaide list. if Adelaide had of paid these players what they wanted it would have forced others out - I feel pretty confident in Adelaide's payment structure as it resulted in a Grand final appearance this year and both Geelong and Hawthorns successful periods were built on similar payment structures. Cameron is the most disappointing case a he has been with the club for a number of years and is established in South Australia yet still wanted to leave to be closer to the family of his partner. I am however comfortable with Adelaide's indigenous player program headed up by Andrew Mcleod and Eddie Betts so i don't think that Cameron leaving is a poor reflection on that aspect of the club. Over this time Adelaide have also lost Ivan Maric, Chris Knights and Sam Kerridge for greater opportunity elsewhere and Tony Armstrong for unknown reasons.
GJ
Guest
Time will tell Don. They're reasonable questions. Interesting that you see yourself as some sort of sage with 20/20 vision of the future.
GJ
Guest
Yay .. Don continues to deflect. Seemed like pretty simple questions to answer. Goes back to trying to justify his original post. It is a commonly used metaphor that most people engaged in football discussion are familiar with. The point being made, wasn't and isn't that Lever is not a talented footballer. The point is that he probably isn't going to be the type of footballer many people are comparing him too.
Don Freo
Guest
Boys, that what metaphors do. You use a metaphor, it creates a picture that others can then engage. Do you want your towell to be a real one? Lever is a really good player. It is just silly to say otherwise. Why else do you think Tex and co are angry? They'd be saying "Good ridance" otherwise. Yours is a crazy argument.
Slane
Guest
It seems likena lot of people can only remember Rance's All-Australian seasons. That bloke used to get slaughtered week-in week-out by the competitions best forwards. I'm 99% sure he won the Reverse Coleman in his first 2 seasons and probably placed in his next 2.
Don Freo
Guest
There are no signs at all of durabilty problems. You're now basing a concrete opinion on an abstract assumption. Lever is a star...a healthy, fit, durable and dominant star.
Basil
Guest
That's the Don Freo way. Change the direction of the debate by picking on a phrase. Must be a politician.
Basil
Guest
Crows have players other teams actually want.
Liam Salter
Roar Guru
"We are modest in Adelaide part of the charm and perhaps lost on youse pontificating types. I like Melbourne and Sydney for that matter but it seems the Insecurity lies with your good self having to beat up on others to make you feel good." I mostly can't argue with that! I love Sydney and Melbourne, but whilst those two seem to be locked in a perennial arm battle about which is better, us in Adelaide just ... live. We just know our city is a good one.
Lamby
Roar Rookie
Will someone please elevate The Lord to the status of 'Guru' please?
Sammy
Guest
Revenge from the crows for lever dumping on his club is best served cold...like a good Clare valley reisling
GJ
Guest
Well, I thought he missed 5 games this season with reported hamstring issues? Longer term durability. As in, as he gets older will he overcome the more minor hamstring problems he's had to date, or will they continue to be an occasional hiccup each season, possibly even getting worse? Lever is at the start of his career. The question was about where he'll be in his mid to late 20's.
GJ
Guest
Funny thing Don, you have nothing of value to add to the comment but you cannot help yourself, so you pick out a commonly used phrase and put your own spin on it. Why not address the overall comment in the post. For example, why did Curnow smash him in that game? Who is his game more comparable too? What sort of a player do you think he will develop into?