I didn't have high expectations
Neither but the club obviously had higher ones as they paid him 500k per annum.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I didn't have high expectations
So they didn’t have to trade for himNeither but the club obviously had higher ones as they paid him 500k per annum.
So they didn’t have to trade for him
Agree, but we were in a very unfortunate position at the time re RoughieYou shouldn't really be after Vickery full stop, but I'm tipping the club expected more of a return than 6 senior games given the salary they paid, irrespective if it was to avoid trading for him. It's a X for the list management team this one.
I didn't have high expectations
I think there is two questions here. Strategy AND pick selection. I like the ‘ one in the hand is worth two in bush‘ strategy that we have applied since the Thorp miss. In fact this strategy has been underpinned by academic research out of the US. Pick selection has been hit and miss, and in our case defies common logic I.e. the earlier the pick, the better the player.
Probably informed by the fact we have rarely had high picks where there is a greater probability of pick success.
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...-the-nfl-draft-wins-nobel-prize-in-economics/
the above article says otherwise
I agree it’s nuanced. However the take home message is that you are likely to win a trade deal by trading your earlier picks for later picks because the club you are dealing with in all likelihood over value early picks.I agree with what you're trying to say for the most part, but it's not what is solely informing our decisions. The decision to trade top draft picks makes sense to an extent when you study the success rate of each different pick and take that success rate in the context of the specific draft.
There's enough exposed form in the underage competitions now to make good decisions about this sort of thing. The average pick between 20-30 will probably net you about 50-60 games, some might exceed expectations and be great players but others may never play at all. It makes sense to trade those picks if you have a player who can help you immediately and that you will get more than that output from.
In the case of this year's draft, the number 1 prospect is a kid who has won every best and fairest since he was 12. He won back to back BOG awards in the NAB League Grand Final. He's a prospect you would not trade for anything any other club would reasonably offer. Other seasons where the talent is more even you might consider splitting it.
Whether or not Draft Picks are overrated depends on the context of the draft you're in, and what specific picks they are. I would say top 10 picks for the most part are rated pretty fairly, late first rounders are very overrated, second rounders similar and then it evens back out.
I agree it’s nuanced. However the take home message is that you are likely to win a trade deal by trading your earlier picks for later picks because the club you are dealing with in all likelihood over value early picks.
Yep that was bad year but then somehow we get Sic (thank *)Thanks Davo!
Only a couple of picks stand out as being shockers.
Hartung and Garlett were just dumb and perhaps desperate picks. I still scratch my head on Lovell.
The rest aren't too bad. 2014 looks bad but we gave up pick 19 but it was slim pickings anyway.
Love your last sentenceIt's the reverse Sicily. They see something in a player that doesn't always pan out.
We tend to remember our misses and not others unless it's a Tambling v Franklin type miss and still Tambling not at Richmond could have been something.
Our recruiters are human and make mistakes the same as everyone else, sometimes in judging a players work ethic and ability to be coached, sometimes their ceiling, sometimes their place in the game as it evolves.
We didn't miss on Lovell then maybe we don't have Worpel now.
I agree with what you're trying to say for the most part, but it's not what is solely informing our decisions. The decision to trade top draft picks makes sense to an extent when you study the success rate of each different pick and take that success rate in the context of the specific draft.
There's enough exposed form in the underage competitions now to make good decisions about this sort of thing. The average pick between 20-30 will probably net you about 50-60 games, some might exceed expectations and be great players but others may never play at all. It makes sense to trade those picks if you have a player who can help you immediately and that you will get more than that output from.
In the case of this year's draft, the number 1 prospect is a kid who has won every best and fairest since he was 12. He won back to back BOG awards in the NAB League Grand Final. He's a prospect you would not trade for anything any other club would reasonably offer. Other seasons where the talent is more even you might consider splitting it.
Whether or not Draft Picks are overrated depends on the context of the draft you're in, and what specific picks they are. I would say top 10 picks for the most part are rated pretty fairly, late first rounders are very overrated, second rounders similar and then it evens back out.
Absolutely? Agreed there's generally a greater sample size for assessment with college athletes but there's still a bunch of "can't miss" top prospects who go on to just mediocre pro careers.Drafts are an american thing where draftees have been in college system and are absolutely a known quantity. Its never going to be that in aus.
you’re misunderstanding the contention. Of course the better players are picked up earlier in the draft. That’s not what is being disputed. What is being disputed is the degree of value. According to the research early picks are weighted more heavily than they should be. For example the recommended approach maybe to sacrifice a top five pick for three picks in the 20s. Which to many recruiters would seem counterintuitive.Would be interesting to see of the AA teams of the past 10 years, which draft picks provided the players.
Surely it would suggest that the majority of these players come from picks 1 - 20, over 21 - 40, over 41 - 60, etc.
Just to clarify, this is really only true for gridiron. The NBA requires only one year of college to become eligible.Drafts are an american thing where draftees have been in college system and are absolutely a known quantity. Its never going to be that in aus.
Wasn’t LeBron drafted straight outta High School?Just to clarify, this is really only true for gridiron. The NBA requires only one year of college to become eligible.
Hockey and baseball are draft eligible at 18. These two are similar to each other in that players that are drafted but do not sign contracts can still play university sports. They remain protected by the team that drafts them until they turn 21. If they haven't signed, they become eligible for any team in the next draft.
IMO, the biggest difference is their age translates to a clearer picture of their mature size and athletic ability.
Yes, prior to the NBA adopting a rule requiring a year out of high school to be eligible for the draft. Last I heard they are considering removing that requirement again soon.Wasn’t LeBron drafted straight outta High School?
Is the year to get them into the college system so as to further their education, or is it so that they’re a year older?Yes, prior to the NBA adopting a rule requiring a year out of high school to be eligible for the draft. Last I heard they are considering removing that requirement again soon.
As I understand it, they can play "D league " (NBA development league), overseas or some other options. The claim was that they were trying to protect kids from entering the league too soon. The cynic in me thinks it was because the NCAA was growing concerned the talent level in university was degrading and they pressured the NBA into an agreement. All about money over here.Is the year to get them into the college system so as to further their education, or is it so that they’re a year older?
I.e. Could they commence a trade instead of college, or play ammo ball etc.?
I'd say part of it was the NBA protecting their teams from themselves.As I understand it, they can play "D league " (NBA development league), overseas or some other options. The claim was that they were trying to protect kids from entering the league too soon. The cynic in me thinks it was because the NCAA was growing concerned the talent level in university was degrading and they pressured the NBA into an agreement. All about money over here.
you’re misunderstanding the contention. Of course the better players are picked up earlier in the draft. That’s not what is being disputed. What is being disputed is the degree of value. According to the research early picks are weighted more heavily than they should be. For example the recommended approach maybe to sacrifice a top five pick for three picks in the 20s. Which to many recruiters would seem counterintuitive.