Discussion on Pick #14 - Jake Lever

[Redleg Crow]

But but but we gambled and won. What did we win? Wigg, cool.

So really your beef is about Wigg. Maybe the Wigg thread is where this discussion should be. Because whinging about us nearly not getting Lever when we did actually get Lever is a nice hypothetical, but seriously, let's stay in the realm of reality and not the "what if it didn't".

We traded down and got Lever, who we wanted, We did it to get pick 35 which we needed because we had given up our pick in the 2nd round pick to get Cheney and Lowden. If we hadn't done the trade we would have ended up with Lever and pick 47. With the trade we got Lever, pick 35 and pick 47.

Whether or not Wigg will be great/bad/spud/who-the-f*ck-knows is just another draft mystery and actually has no bearing on whether going from 10 to 14 was good or bad - but is purely a call on whether or not the bloke we picked at Number 35 was a good pick.

The club wanted a second round pick and wanted Lever. It took a calculated risk - a gamble if you like - but it did it, and it got what it was after. It won the gamble. Whether the club spent the winnings on a good buy in Wigg is actually unrelated. That is purely about debating if our Wigg pick was good or not.

For mine, this discussion is all a bit too much based in the yeah but what it we didn't get Lever, what then, sphere.

Might as well go back and argue that Blight took too big of a gamble in the 1997 GF because what if Shane Ellen didn't kick 5 goals??

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Did you not read CC's post? They weren't confident at all.

Read the article after the trade & they were confident of getting a top player with pick #14. They would never have given up pick #10 if they thought there would be a big difference between picks #10 & #14.

I trust their judgement based on past decisions. Others decide to be critical even when it works out ok. Guess I prefer to be critical when it doesn't work out ok after a poor decision....

 

[Elite Crow]

Maybe it was just me that was confident , still think that it backfired more so for 2nd pick as they didn't quite get their slider , and plan worked out as hoped for pick 14 .... Cant really complain about what potentially could have gone wrong when it didn't

There is a couple of elements to this. Firstly at the time some of us questioned the logic, we were appeased by the club and some posters that they were confident they would get their player. It turned out we did but they weren't confident at all.

Now the news has come out that they weren't confident we have the same posters saying it's okay because we ended up winning. Won what? Some are claiming we won because we got Lever, when in fact judging if it was a win is gaining Wigg, someone I wouldn't have risked Lever on.

 

[Elite Crow]

Read the article after the trade & they were confident of getting a top player with pick #14. They would never have given up pick #10 if they thought there would be a big difference between picks #10 & #14.

I trust their judgement based on past decisions. Others decide to be critical even when it works out ok. Guess I prefer to be critical when it doesn't work out ok after a poor decision....

They rated Lever 3rd best didn't they? Giving up pick 10 could have seen us miss out, I for one would prefer they didn't risk our future like that. We are lucky it worked out.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

There is a couple of elements to this. Firstly at the time some of us questioned the logic, we were appeased by the club and some posters that they were confident they would get their player. It turned out we did but they weren't confident at all.

Now the news has come out that they weren't confident we have the same posters saying it's okay because we ended up winning. Won what? Some are claiming we won because we got Lever, when in fact judging if it was a win is gaining Wigg, someone I wouldn't have risked Lever on.

So in the end we missed a big win by getting lever and Maynard and had a small win by getting lever and wigg vs lever and a pick in 40s presuming wigg picked in top 40 so I don't get the angst , it's prob one part of he club that does things pretty well -the drafting part of our recruting

 

[Elite Crow]

So really your beef is about Wigg. Maybe the Wigg thread is where this discussion should be. Because whinging about us nearly not getting Lever when we did actually get Lever is a nice hypothetical, but seriously, let's stay in the realm of reality and not the "what if it didn't".

We traded down and got Lever, who we wanted, We did it to get pick 35 which we needed because we had given up our pick in the 2nd round pick to get Cheney and Lowden. If we hadn't done the trade we would have ended up with Lever and pick 47. With the trade we got Lever, pick 35 and pick 47.

Whether or not Wigg will be great/bad/spud/who-the-f*ck-knows is just another draft mystery and actually has no bearing on whether going from 10 to 14 was good or bad - but is purely a call on whether or not the bloke we picked at Number 35 was a good pick.

The club wanted a second round pick and wanted Lever. It took a calculated risk - a gamble if you like - but it did it, and it got what it was after. It won the gamble. Whether the club spent the winnings on a good buy in Wigg is actually unrelated. That is purely about debating if our Wigg pick was good or not.

For mine, this discussion is all a bit too much based in the yeah but what it we didn't get Lever, what then, sphere.

Might as well go back and argue that Blight took too big of a gamble in the 1997 GF because what if Shane Ellen didn't kick 5 goals??

No my beef is we gambled in the first place, especially given our lack of recent top end talent.

 

[Elite Crow]

So in the end we missed a big win by getting lever and Maynard and had a small win by getting lever and wigg vs lever and a pick in 40s presuming wigg picked in top 40 so I don't get the angst , it's prob one part of he club that does things pretty well -the drafting part of our recruting

What if we lost?

 

[Jeffcrowe]

What if we lost?

Sack em ...what if we kept Chris groom ? We didn't , move on

 

[AFC979810]

So in the end we missed a big win by getting lever and Maynard and had a small win by getting lever and wigg vs lever and a pick in 40s presuming wigg picked in top 40 so I don't get the angst , it's prob one part of he club that does things pretty well -the drafting part of our recruting

I guess you can look at the scenario based on possible outcomes:

Big win: Lever / Maynard
Par: Lever / Wigg
Big Loss: Laverde / Wigg

It worked out fine in the end. If we had to do it all over again without the benefit of hindsight - I still wouldn't trade #10 & #47 for #14 and #35.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

They rated Lever 3rd best didn't they? Giving up pick 10 could have seen us miss out, I for one would prefer they didn't risk our future like that. We are lucky it worked out.

We could have missed lever at pick #10 too. There are no guarantees as can't be absolutely sure what other clubs will do but can have an educated guess... Which is what noble & co did when trading down to #14.

I'm comfortable with what they did - you aren't - so beit - move on...

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

What if we lost?

What if we didn't trade wellman for Jarman?

Why stop there & do a sliding doors analysis of Afc...

 

[Elite Crow]

What if we didn't trade wellman for Jarman?

Why stop there & do a sliding doors analysis of Afc...

That's silly Kane. Trading in a premiership gun isn't a gamble.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

That's silly Kane. Trading in a premiership gun isn't a gamble.

But we traded out a player who played in a flag too who was younger. It's not open & shut but an educated decision.

 

[Bicks]

Would I prefer 2 decent picks or 1?

Never have I wanted a draftee to succeed like I want Harrison Wigg to.......please footy gods make him a 200+ game player!!

 

[Jeffcrowe]

I guess you can look at the scenario based on possible outcomes:

Big win: Lever / Maynard
Par: Lever / Wigg
Big Loss: Laverde / Wigg

It worked out fine in the end. If we had to do it all over again without the benefit of hindsight - I still wouldn't trade #10 & #47 for #14 and #35.

The swap of picks enabled them to have lever Goddard marchbank cockatoo on their board and then Maynard menadue Howe wigg when the original position they had none of their 2 pick options being likely ... You can see why they did it

 

[Mike Smyth]

Never have I wanted a draftee to succeed like I want Harrison Wigg to.......please footy gods make him a 200+ game player!!

he had better otherwise that trade of 10 for 14 will always look really stupid.

 

[Mattrox]

Absolutely it was.

Based on talent alone - he was widely tipped to be a top 5 pick.

They drafted him in 2013 after just winning a flag and after losing the grand final in 2012. They had a very strong mature culture and a team that was stacked. They were chasing more immediate success and if he could get his head right - Garlett would be instantly improve their best 22.

They knew they had fantastic leaders/mentors in Luke Hodge and Shaun Burgoyne. And set it up so that Garlett could live with Luke Hodge.

They used pick 38 in that draft. Picks in the late 30's are not worth much at all (can't wait for everyone to come screaming in with BUT WE GOT SLOANE IN THE 30's).

So what was at risk for Hawthorn? Losing pick 38. If he couldn't hack it they would delist him and pay him out his $50,000 rookie salary. Their culture was strong enough to absorb whatever incidents Garlett could throw at them (as evidenced by their 2014 flag).

What was there to gain? A physically ready top 5 talent who had proven at WFL level that he could win games off his own boot.

It was a high risk - high reward move that was well calculated.

It was not a good rational decision.

It was a huge gamble with a very low chance of coming off. A gamble they could afford to lose- but a one in a million chance none the less.

 

[FantasticShirt]

I guess you can look at the scenario based on possible outcomes:

Big win: Lever / Maynard
Par: Lever / Wigg
Big Loss: Laverde / Wigg

It worked out fine in the end. If we had to do it all over again without the benefit of hindsight - I still wouldn't trade #10 & #47 for #14 and #35.

This whole discussion on worthiness of the trade is just ridiculous. How can we comment on the worth of the trades when we have no idea what the players are actually like? 3-5 years from now is when we'll start getting a true idea of how good this trade was.

 

[Cap]

Absolutely.

If Hawthorn had a pick in the late 30's in 2014 and there was a player that had top 5 potential but had off field issues - of course they would.

sorry with hindsight knowledge they would do what they normally do and raid other clubs.

You can defend a spectacular failure by one club in their calculated risk yet bag the Crows for taking one, that has an outcome that is yet to be determined.

So really do you just want a steady as she goes club?

 

[Bicks]

he had better otherwise that trade of 10 for 14 will always look really stupid.

Don't worry their will be a couple of posters that I'll be sure to well and truly remind in that event....

 

[Bicks]

sorry with hindsight knowledge they would do what they normally do and raid other clubs.

You can defend a spectacular failure by one club in their calculated risk yet bag the Crows for taking one, that has an outcome that is yet to be determined.

So really do you just want a steady as she goes club?

I think you just well and truly blew that argument to the sheizzen houssen...well done!!

 

[Big Gazoongas]

That opens up another can of worms...

We then have a player that went at pick 14 that we had as the 3rd best player. We then have another player (Laverde) who went pick 20 that we would have taken at 14 because he was so high on our list.

Combine this with Siggins being sprouted as #8 on our list... Has Ogilvie gone mad?

You can put up hypothetical outcomes till the cows come home, reality is that these scenarios have a collective value of zero, why, because by all accounts we got the player we wanted.

That's were this discussion should start and end.

 

[GROTTO]

Absolutely.

If Hawthorn had a pick in the late 30's in 2014 and there was a player that had top 5 potential but had off field issues - of course they would.

Absolutely bullshit in hindsight.

Clubs today rate of-field issues very very highly. Rolling the dice on a player based purely on potential but has the ability to dismantle the stability of the Club is not worth the risk-rewards scenario. Very different situation if the player is actually a top 5 player but on potential, definitely not.

 

[Mattrox]

Picking up Garlett cost the Hawks the 2014 flag

And that is exactly the point. They could afford the 1 in a million gamble.

 

[Cap]

I think you just well and truly blew that argument to the sheizzrn houssen...well done!!

?