Preview National Draft discussion (Picks 14, 35, 43, 58)

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Of course there were discussions beforehand, the trades were linked, I'm not sure where the argument is?

We could have traded in Lowden/Cheney without following up with the pick downgrade.

They were independent.

The only way they could be considered linked was if there was some AFL rule that all clubs must emerge from trade week with a second round pick that we needed to abide by.

Or if Hawthorn would only trade Lowden/Cheney to us on the proviso that we would then use one of the picks to shuffle our draft order with Geelong.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

It's relevant when you're using it as an example to impugn Ogilvie in respect of his ability to assess and advise on a draft order

In your first post you listed Noble/Walsh/Ogilvie "knowing about our needs" now we're restricting it to just Ogilvie and the draft order?

 

[Mego Red]

There are advantages available to every club. Would we have won any flags without the SA players who were only available to us? Start up clubs come in and there are opportunities. Would Essendon have won in 2000 if they hadn't been able to snap up Lloyd/Lucas for a bag of peanuts? Us without grabbing McLeod? The what if stuff applies to everyone, it's a waste of time.

Ummm - didn't you just list advantages that WEREN'T available to every club? Aren't they definitely all advantages that were exploited by those clubs alone? Unless you're arguing that every club had equal opportunity to be the Crows or to grab Lucas or McLeod.

 

[Mego Red]

The worse the player we target the better the chance of that happening

Your posting has fallen off a cliff. I genuinely don't know what you're trying to achieve any more.

 

[Mego Red]

We could have traded in Lowden/Cheney without following up with the pick downgrade.

They were independent.

The only way they could be considered linked was if there was some AFL rule that all clubs must emerge from trade week with a second round pick that we needed to abide by.

Or if Hawthorn would only trade Lowden/Cheney to us on the proviso that we would then use one of the picks to shuffle our draft order with Geelong.

Yep. One version has us getting those players and losing a second round pick and the other has us getting them for a shuffle down of pick position in an even draft.

We need an influx of youth - while they are not literally linked (as you've pedantically pointed out), they were probably linked in planning as they version that eventuated of pick shuffle is so much more preferable than not having a second round selection.

 

[baldandbroke]

The worse the player we target the better the chance of that happening

Completely wrong Druggy, and you know it. The draft order never works out as being from "best" to "worst" - and a player you consider "not as good" might actually be essential for the team he goes to.

Why are you on such a negative with something you know nothing about.

ALL of your assumptions take the worse case scenario in terms of what we are thinking, how stupid our recruiters are, how smart the opposition recruiters are, who we are going to pick, why we are making a mistake picking them, who everyone else is going to pick, why they are so much better than our choice, etc...

Try and take a more reasonable approach to your guesses and the world might seem a little less black and cold and dark.

 

[baldandbroke]

We could have traded in Lowden/Cheney without following up with the pick downgrade.

They were independent.

The only way they could be considered linked was if there was some AFL rule that all clubs must emerge from trade week with a second round pick that we needed to abide by.

Or if Hawthorn would only trade Lowden/Cheney to us on the proviso that we would then use one of the picks to shuffle our draft order with Geelong.

Cripes.

Are you even thinking anymore?

The link was ... we can trade out our second rounder for the two trades from Hawthorn THEN we can do the swap with Geelong of 10 for 14 and 35 to get back into the second round.

That would have been an AFC internal discussion and decision.

 

[dogs105]

Of course that's right. The question is SHOULD we be settling for a needs pick on a player all the other clubs have at 14 plus

9 clubs thought Dangerfield wasn't as good as their guy. Most were wrong.

The recruiters have a pretty good track record, why not give them the benefit of the doubt?

Apparently we had Davis and Danger (for two) ranked higher than most other clubs. Turned out OK. Gunston was in our top ten, drafted him later, and he probably would be top ten from that draft.

We'll probably end up with a player we rated in the top few, and would have picked him at 10 or 14. Time will tell whether we're right, but in this context the pick swap is good business.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Your posting has fallen off a cliff. I genuinely don't know what you're trying to achieve any more.

Being happy with our trades but not being happy about trading down the first 1st round pick we've had in three years.

I don't think is an unreasonable position.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

We'll probably end up with a player we rated in the top few, and would have picked him at 10 or 14. Time will tell whether we're right, but in this context the pick swap is good business.

I've said right from the start how brilliant it would be if the club encrypted Kid 10 in our thread, then unveiled when we end up nabbing him at 14. Credibility all round!

As it is we'll never know and Kid 14 will have the shadow of 10, 11, 12 & 14 hovering over him his whole career.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Ummm - didn't you just list advantages that WEREN'T available to every club? Aren't they definitely all advantages that were exploited by those clubs alone? Unless you're arguing that every club had equal opportunity to be the Crows or to grab Lucas or McLeod.

I'm saying writing off Geelong's success on the back of a few players taken outside the normal channels could equally be applied elsewhere.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Cripes.

Are you even thinking anymore?

The link was ... we can trade out our second rounder for the two trades from Hawthorn THEN we can do the swap with Geelong of 10 for 14 and 35 to get back into the second round.

That would have been an AFC internal discussion and decision.

Yes... wtf?

It was an internal AFC discussion.

Trade with Hawthorn?

Yes.

Follow up with the Geelong pick swap?

Yes. Or we could have decided No and kept Lowden and Cheney, 10 and 47.

 

[baldandbroke]

Yes... wtf?

It was an internal AFC discussion.

Trade with Hawthorn?

Yes.

Follow up with the Geelong pick swap?

Yes. Or we could have decided No and kept Lowden and Cheney, 10 and 47.

Hang on - are you thinking that when people are saying they were linked - that they mean that somehow Geelong and Hawthorn and Adelaide were in some "trading room" and we all held hands and organised the trades of Lowden and Cheney and the swap of picks??

I think you will find that people mean they are linked in that we were ok with letting our second rounder go to the Hawks, because we had the pick swap with Geelong lined up. So we might not have got the trade done if we didn't have a way to get back into the second round.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Completely wrong Druggy, and you know it.

Umm... it's absolutely 100% right and you couldn't possibly argue against it.

The probability of our guy still being there at 14 goes up depending on how lowly he is rated by other clubs.

The draft order never works out as being from "best" to "worst" - and a player you consider "not as good" might actually be essential for the team he goes to.

Why are you on such a negative with something you know nothing about.

ALL of your assumptions take the worse case scenario in terms of what we are thinking, how stupid our recruiters are, how smart the opposition recruiters are, who we are going to pick, why we are making a mistake picking them, who everyone else is going to pick, why they are so much better than our choice, etc...

Try and take a more reasonable approach to your guesses and the world might seem a little less black and cold and dark.

We're back on this? If the draft pick is just a number and the draft order doesn't work out in order of quality, then going from 47 to 35 is no biggie yeah?

Why am I being so negative about the draft picks? Why am I being so positive about the trades? Maybe I think the trades were good, the pick downgrade bad. Shock horror.

 

[Tex200]

In your first post you listed Noble/Walsh/Ogilvie "knowing about our needs" now we're restricting it to just Ogilvie and the draft order?

I thought the context of the draft was implied - given this is the drafting thread and all.

It seems to me your position is there can be no good reason , no excuse for trading 10-14. Fair enough, your absolutely entitled to that view.

That being the case you must believe Noble/Ogilvie/Walsh are either;

1. Deliberately trying to sabotage the AFC and set it up for failure; or

2. That all 3 are so incompetent that they are capable of conspiring to make an error that a school kid would not make.

Which is your position ?

 

[baldandbroke]

Umm... it's absolutely 100% right and you couldn't possibly argue against it.

The probability of our guy still being there at 14 goes up depending on how lowly he is rated by other clubs.

No you are wrong again, this is the quote I said that you had completely wrong:

The worse the player we target the better the chance of that happening

You are so full of it it's getting sad.

Do you think that the players that the teams before us have lined up for their first round picks, might be different than the player we want at 14? Of course you do.

So is it possible that the player we rate the BEST could be available at pick 14? Of course he could.

So now do you see why the idea that you put forward about "the worse the player / the better the chance" is complete rubbish?

And now to this beauty ...

We're back on this? If the draft pick is just a number and the draft order doesn't work out in order of quality, then going from 47 to 35 is no biggie yeah?

That could be true, precisely ... you are catching on. BUT if it isn't true - if going from 47 to 35 is a biggie for the AFC, AND going from 10 to 14 is not a biggie for the AFC- then you could possibly concede that it would be an intelligent thing for the AFC to make the swap of picks. Right?

Or do you think that our recruiters just did it on whim?

Why am I being so negative about the draft picks? Why am I being so positive about the trades? Maybe I think the trades were good, the pick downgrade bad. Shock horror.

I think the reason you are being how you are being has everything to do with trying to predict something so you can come back later and say .... SEE!! I told you it was dumb, if we had kept pick 10 we could have got XXXXX and he is now a Brownlow medalist, AND the guy we got a 35 was a waste of list space.

The bit you aren't getting is that the guy we will pick up at pick 14 - will be the exact same guy that we would have got at 10.

The bit you aren't getting is that you know nothing, you are guessing stuff that makes no sense. You are assuming that you, with all your inside knowledge about the draft and years of work scouting the players available - know more than the professionals hired to do exactly that (in real life), that have a proven track record in doing exactly that.

 

[boffo]

The interesting point in all this is....... Geelong obviously assess the quality of the draft pool differently to us.

They were not content with #14 and keen to move up in the first round. They obviously think the higher the first round pick the better for the club (which is pretty obvious isn't it?).

We think 10 or 14 won't make much difference in the first round so better for our total draft package to include a second round pick.

The difference in strategy is even more interesting when you consider we and Geelong have similar needs: a KPD and/or pacey midfielder.

My theory: We would have kept 10 except Walsh wanted us to get a second rounder, so we took up Geelong's offer of a pick swap (based on our assessment of the top-20 talent).

It could turn out to be a brilliant move or a burnout, depending on how good our selections at #14 and #35 become.

 

[boffo]

The bit you aren't getting is that the guy we will pick up at pick 14 - will be the exact same guy that we would have got at 10.

Dubious comment OoTC, don't know how you can say this.

 

[Tex200]

The interesting point in all this is....... Geelong obviously assess the quality of the draft pool differently to us.

They were not content with #14 and keen to move up in the first round. They obviously think the higher the first round pick the better for the club (which is pretty obvious isn't it?).

We think 10 or 14 won't make much difference in the first round so better for our total draft package to include a second round pick.

The difference in strategy is even more interesting when you consider we and Geelong have similar needs: a KPD and/or pacey midfielder.

My theory: We would have kept 10 except Walsh wanted us to get a second rounder, so we took up Geelong's offer of a pick swap (based on our assessment of the top-20 talent).

It could turn out to be a brilliant move or a burnout, depending on how good our selections at #14 and #35 become.

Exactly - the 10-14 slide was part of the cost for Cheney and Lowden. If 10 becomes a superstar, 14 just an ordinary player, you still need to look at the overall package which included Lowden and Cheney. If Cheney becomes a best 22 and Lowden a star for example, then the overall trade is probably balanced

 

[baldandbroke]

The interesting point in all this is....... Geelong obviously assess the quality of the draft pool differently to us.

They were not content with #14 and keen to move up in the first round. They obviously think the higher the first round pick the better for the club (which is pretty obvious isn't it?).

We think 10 or 14 won't make much difference in the first round so better for our total draft package to include a second round pick.

The difference in strategy is even more interesting when you consider we and Geelong have similar needs: a KPD and/or pacey midfielder.

My theory: We would have kept 10 except Walsh wanted us to get a second rounder, so we took up Geelong's offer of a pick swap (based on our assessment of the top-20 talent).

It could turn out to be a brilliant move or a burnout, depending on how good our selections at #14 and #35 become.

That is one theory - the other is that Geelong wanted to get ahead of the WA teams. I tend to think that is the case, they want someone who either Freo or WC had in their sights.

 

[baldandbroke]

Dubious comment OoTC, don't know how you can say this.

Thats my feeling on why we swapped 10 for 14. The guy we want will not get taken by Geelong / Freo / Richmond / West Coast.

All the teams rank players differently (thats how we got Dangerfield) and I think this is widely known by recruiters. It's not like the other teams are gonna say "Wow, Adelaide want Billy Bob? Maybe all the work we have done trying to get what is best for our team should be thrown out the window and we just grab him." The other teams have their order, we have ours. Usually the top 3-5 picks most agree on (doesn't mean they are right) - but after that it is very much down to individual guesstimates by the each recruiting team.

 

[boffo]

You could also reasonably interpret the pick swap to mean we would be happy with one of several players of similar talent, one of whom is still sure to be there at #14.

With #14 we should get one of Durdin/Goddard/Marchbank)

or

one of numerous highly rated midfielders (Duggan/Cockatoo etc).

 

[baldandbroke]

You could also reasonably interpret the pick swap to mean we would be happy with one of several players of similar talent, one of whom is still sure to be there at #14.

With #14 we should get one of Durdin/Goddard/Marchbank)

or

one of numerous highly rated midfielders (Duggan/Cockatoo etc).

I think Cockatoo is the guy we have our finger on. We needed to get to him before North Melbourne, so the slip to 14 didn't matter.

 

[Tex200]

I think Cockatoo is the guy we have our finger on. We needed to get to him before North Melbourne, so the slip to 14 didn't matter.

Talk of WCE taking him at 11 if GWS take Pickett.

 

[baldandbroke]

Talk of WCE taking him at 11 if GWS take Pickett.

Yep saw that, still think he will be available at 14. I'm just guessing like everyone else