Southerntakeover
Too Sweet
Because that's not the only relevant factor.
If I buy the same car for $10000, or $5000 is it your position that I'm getting the same value?
Hint: I'm not.
Player Watch Tom Doedee - Departed for Brisbane, End of 1st Round FA Compensation
- Thread starter cmndstab
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Because that's not the only relevant factor.
If I buy the same car for $10000, or $5000 is it your position that I'm getting the same value?
Hint: I'm not.
Wouldn't surprise if we are saying the same thing in 8 years when looking back on this thread after Doedee's 4th AA and 2nd B&F.
I'm calling it now Doedee to be our Pendlebury.
Canberra Based Crow
Senior List
I was surprised to see us pick him but will back our recruiters any day based on their track record. Welcome to the club Tom!
I know what you're trying to get at, but this ain't a car dealership, it's the draft where there is a lot more uncertainty.
mickfaxis
Club Legend
- Sep 28, 2014
- 2,369
- 2,867
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Clearly we're not stupid. We've seen something in him that Phantom draft judges didn't. Who's to say 10 other clubs didn't think the same thing? We'll never know, unless he becomes a gun, and then they'll come out and say he was on their list.
- Oct 6, 2012
- 13,352
- 26,628
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Shouldn't really surprise you that all the discussion is on our first pick?
That's criminal .....we have a great recruit in Milera .....FFS get on that thread and celebrate
Not too strange given there have been a number on here who didn't want us touching anyone from Melbourne/Victoria.
Whether this pick was rated is not the issue. We used a first round pick to secure a 3rd round prospect. We don't have the luxury or history of 1st rounders to be so flippant with our selections.
The problem for the club and for this recruit will be the level of expectation. Sure it will make for interesting times on Bigfooty but the club has an obligation to its shareholders to use our resources to the best of their ability.
In short they F**ked up!........that's what we have to deal with!!
If he ends up being in the best 17 players in this draft then we have got value for money. Beauty of the draft is that no club or recruiter is wrong at the moment, that can only be proved one way or the other down the track.
Southerntakeover
Too Sweet
But that's the point. It's not conceptually different.
Draft picks have a value. They're a commodity. The AFL has explicitly adopted this reasoning in their new academy bidding system.
If we could have gotten the same return, whilst spending less, we should have done it.
That's entirely the point. It's not outside the realms of possibility that we could have gotten what we got and more. And that's the problem. You should never walk away from an off season with that thought.
Southerntakeover
Too Sweet
Actually, I don't think that's right.
Your player evaluation can only be determined with time- sure. The actual in draft value of a player however is determined at this point in time.
If you had access to every team's draft board you could quantify each player's draft value, and determine who overpaid and who didn't.
The trick- the real hit it out of the park- is to get the highest possible return for the assets that you have. I.e. to get the best players at the best price. If the second best player in the draft is really available at pick 70, then your dream is to take them there.
Matt Burgan who was the AFL Draft guru before Cal Twomey, had him at 14... So disagree staby, he was rated highly, inside 15. By the number 1 phantom drafter of his day.
http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/8446-matt-burgans-phantom-draft/
- Thread starter
- #665
The stats Cleric is quoting are from the four championships games.
STO - you're right on this one, of course. If he was truly going to go later in the draft, and we were keen on taking him, it would have been sensible to try to downgrade pick 13 in a trade to get some extra quality somewhere else. The fact that we didn't leads me to think that we expected someone else to slide to 13. If I'm right, I wonder who it is?
- Oct 16, 2014
- 46
- 93
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I'll admit that i too am little underwhelmed by this pick but don't believe the club reached overly in picking Doedee. He was clearly rated by the recruiters and who's to say other recruiters weren't similarly thinking likewise? With little exposed form he potentially has more upside and in a seemingly shallow draft, was worth a punt.
Doedee certainly looks to have been drafted to play as a defender rather than as a midfielder. If with his physical attributes and agility he can develop into a defender capable of marking both smalls and talls i.e. Stratton, then i'll certainly be on board as defenders like that offer enormous flexibility and would certainly fulfill a definite need. Would be ideal in a team defence similar to what AFC are looking to be develop.
Who was our last quality defender capable of playing both small and tall? Hart? Smart? Caven?
Doedee certainly looks to have been drafted to play as a defender rather than as a midfielder. If with his physical attributes and agility he can develop into a defender capable of marking both smalls and talls i.e. Stratton, then i'll certainly be on board as defenders like that offer enormous flexibility and would certainly fulfill a definite need. Would be ideal in a team defence similar to what AFC are looking to be develop.
Who was our last quality defender capable of playing both small and tall? Hart? Smart? Caven?
Market value is null and void in a lottery system. Did Carlton pay overs for Gibbs and Kruezer? I would suggest they have never been better then a 2nd round pick but they were both #1 and rated extremely highly under 'Market Value'. 'Market Value' also works in reverse with Sloane taken at pick #44, most clubs would trade a top 10 pick for him if not higher. Don't put all your eggs into the 'Market Value' system just because it sounds good.
Southerntakeover
Too Sweet
I think that rings true. You don't trade down, because you thought you needed this pick for someone else.
If that's true, it's the worst possible outcome really. It's also another compelling example of why in draft trading should be possible.
we don't. tonight is about pissing contests on the main boards about theoretical wins and losses.
Wow - Cleric talking shit as usual.. who would have thought?
I am reserved on this pick, just like I would have been reserved with anyone we picked, because I'm not a recruiter and don't know shit about judging young talent - I think all youtube highlights basically look the same as each other -
I have no idea who the kid is, but I wouldn't know who any of the kids are who have been drafted except that anonymous people on bigfooty who I don't know have mentioned them before...
Good luck, Tom - The internet is a vile place, don't read anything here
Exactly. Surely we could have received a 2016 2nd and 3rd round this year and still get the Doed. We paid overs for a guy we could have got for significantly less. Even if he becomes the next Pendles, we still could have got him for far less.
Dangerfield was absolutely NOT rated top 15 pick. Now you are just taking bullshit. The lowest any mock draft had him was at pick 25.. He wasn't even considered as a first rounder.
The meltdown at this time of the year on this board is priceless. Everyone is an armchair expert. This sort of thing was always going to happen in an even draft it just happened to be us this time around. Collingwood's pick didn't even have a profile on afl website and they have some of the best recruiters going around.
Given our track records with first round picks since Hamish has been part of our recruiting team, I am confident that we have picked a very good player. In a few years time this thread will get a bump for some genuine lols.
- Thread starter
- #673
Danger was a bit of a bolter in phantom drafts in the last few days leading up to the draft - presumably word of interest from clubs started to leak. But he wasn't seen as a first rounder (back in the days when the first round ended at pick 16) at the time.
At it is, it didn't really matter who it was. The outrage at the time wasn't because people thought Dangerfield was crap, it was because after years of burning first round selections we finally had a very safe, local product in Ebert available to us and we passed over it. This was also right after we got dudded in the Hudson trade only to have Rendell publicly laugh about it so people were a bit gun-shy at the time.
I'm backing our recruiting dept on Doedee. Given the attributes shown on the highlights package, if he can develop into a Stratton type player it'll be a very good selection.
Welcome to the AFC Tom!
Welcome to the AFC Tom!
Southerntakeover
Too Sweet
No, that's very poor reasoning, and in no way suggests market value doesn't exist at the time of the draft.
You may suggest that Carlton failed in player analysis, although I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment of the players involved.
If you were correct in your assessment though then really what Carlton should have done in perfect world hindsight is traded down to capitalise on the market value for those players, and selected the best players in the draft at the appropriate position (being immediately before the first other team to select them would have). They then use the assets that they got from trading down to get more of these better players.
Similar threads
