My concern or thought rather is that they will want to get top value for each of them based on their original pick position. Ive looked at Toumpas a bit and he has done NOTHING since being drafted. He has had a bad run with different injuries and had a big wrap coming into the draft. Thing is now, he has about 6 new high picks and players in front of him and is not setting the world on fire at Casey. Follow that with another high pick or two this year and he is a LONG way back.
For the right price, worth a look for mine.
Go Catters
I posted something about this on the Melb board. How quick does a player lose or gain from their draft position.... go onto the GWS & GC boards and they feel they should still be getting close to what they paid . I'm sure Melb hope for the same.
I've thought for a while that once you have spent the pick and they are on you list the pick position is almost becomes redundant. Certainly the longer they are on the list , the less relevant it is. Its like who is in front at the 1000M in a 10,000M event. Obviously Melb paid less than what Tyson cost because the got later picks upgraded. What did we end up paying for Caddy? Probably about the same but in Y2 he played a lot of footy. Players who fail to advance seem to fall. You must have shown something. I'd have thought with the Melb players , even Wells would adjust his assessments based on what they have done compared to what he thought Pre Draft.
The value for a club getting them may come from the over valuing of a draft kid.. that happen every year. If we traded one in , and they stepped straight into the side and played 5 years plus then I'd say they are well worth a R1 pick , especially when we have a good group of youth already developing and how late our R1 is.
For example , if Grimes came to GFC , played in the BP , became one of the best small rebounding defenders a pick around 16-20 would certainly be well spent.Thing is it just doesn't seem to work that way , I think they will struggle to get R1's for individual players.