List Mgmt. AFC - 2014 Drafting and Trading

[cmndstab]

I have no issues with us getting Lowden and Cheney. Not blue chip trades or significant difference makers but I understand why and it does balance our squad better.

The pick up/downgrades were separate to this though I thought? Or were they all part of it?

They're "kind of" part of it. The club clearly didn't want to be picking that late in the draft. Taking Lowden and Cheney means we don't have to pick that late in the draft, but it cost us our second-round pick. We then effectively got one back by dropping down a few places in the first round.

Seems like our strategy was to address needs with whatever cheap players were available, while ensuring we ended up retaining a first and second round selection and didn't have to draft too deep. Obviously going from 10 to 14 is a gamble but they seem to think it's a well-calculated one. Fingers crossed, I guess!

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

It wouldn't have happened in the last five minutes otherwise

What do you mean?

Didn't the pick exchange happen because we thought what we got back was better than what we gave up?

We'd think that to be true at the start, middle and end of trade week surely.

 

[Red mist]

They're "kind of" part of it. The club clearly didn't want to be picking that late in the draft. Taking Lowden and Cheney means we don't have to pick that late in the draft, but it cost us our second-round pick. We then effectively got one back by dropping down a few places in the first round.

Seems like our strategy was to address needs with whatever cheap players were available, while ensuring we ended up retaining a first and second round selection and didn't have to draft too deep. Obviously going from 10 to 14 is a gamble but they seem to think it's a well-calculated one. Fingers crossed, I guess!

Yep well said because I can't articulate that as well as you did!

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

You just know we're going to see players 10, 11, 12 and 13 get compared to our guy their whole career. Like Tambling, they've needlessly got pressure on them before they've even started.

Except there's four of them.

 

[Red mist]

What do you mean?

Didn't the pick exchange happen because we thought what we got back was better than what we gave up?

We'd think that to be true at the start, middle and end of trade week surely.

We did all our trades in the last 5 or 10 minutes. I think so the result of trading players with hawthorn needed to come first and then the pick trade with geelong followed suit.

 

[TheGriff6]

Im just happy LT was delisted

 

[Mattrox]

That's even harder to understand.

Our ability to predict exactly what other clubs will pick would get worse and worse as the draft goes on. Thirty something... forty something. Little more than educated guesswork at that stage.


And if three of those guys are gone by Pick 9? I just find it baffling.


Not following this sorry.

We downgraded when it was obvious that we weren't going to make any significant trades using our picks or players coupled with our picks. Whether it was late in the piece or not doesn't matter.

There must be players ranked in the 30 to 40 range they want a crack at. At 47 they might miss out. If they were happy with pick 10 then 3rd round picks they would not have traded. They already had 2 players +4 usable picks. Getting into the 2nd round must have been important list wise.

Noble mentions in the interview intel about all clubs needs and their current lists. This is congruent with experts like Emma Quayle getting her 1st round predictions quite accurate. People know how the top of the draft will fall.

In the end we can only see how the draft goes. Given Richmond, West Coast and Freo didn't trade. We would not have looked out of place by not trading.

Picking up two players for a 2nd round downgrade to a 3rd plus two upgrades. Doesn't seem like a desperate trade to me.

The pick 47 we got from Hawthorn, they only got in the Hallahan trade earlier in the day. Hawthorn were after a pick in the 30's for Hallahan. They were probably shopping their picks around before doing their deal with us. We were well into Lowden and Cheney. This was documented at the beginning of the day. Then Conners dropped about midday that the Lowden/Cheney trade should go through. We were clearly working on it all day.... and we had talked to Cheney over the weekend prior to week 2.

We could not possibly offload pick 47 to Geelong any sooner as we only officially got it about 10 mins earlier acvording to the news feeds.

Trading for the sake of trading arguments sound like a nice criticism to make to score Purple some media points or to score internetz pointz, but we were well into these 2 players before the last day.

10 mins is not enough to "scramble" a last minute pick swap ad hoc, I wouldn't have thought. Adelaide would have had to line this up prior to the Cheney/Lowden trade.

 

[Red mist]

Im just happy LT was delisted

That guy was Crazy Donny!

 

[Red mist]

Im just happy LT was delisted

You just know we're going to see players 10, 11, 12 and 13 get compared to our guy their whole career. Like Tambling, they've needlessly got pressure on them before they've even started.

Except there's four of them.

Not if it's Nakia,

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

We did all our trades in the last 5 or 10 minutes. I think so the result of trading players with hawthorn needed to come first and then the pick trade with geelong followed suit.

I don't know if I'm missing something here but surely we could have done the trade with Hawthorn then not done the pick exchange with Geelong

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

There must be players ranked in the 30 to 40 range they want a crack at. At 47 they might miss out. If they were happy with pick 10 then 3rd round picks they would not have traded. They already had 2 players +4 usable picks. Getting into the 2nd round must have been important list wise.

Noble mentions in the interview intel about all clubs needs and their current lists. This is congruent with experts like Emma Quayle getting her 1st round predictions quite accurate. People know how the top of the draft will fall.

Top of draft fairly accurate (but always some Mackie/Howard surprises no matter how good anyone's intel is) then less accurate as it goes on. This is why I would love us to put our credibility on the line and say the player(s) we're expecting to nab with this strategy. I know we won't but we'll say afterwards that it worked regardless of what happens.

Picking up two players for a 2nd round downgrade to a 3rd plus two upgrades. Doesn't seem like a desperate trade to me.

Again, I might be wrong here because I really wasn't following everything that closely but weren't the Hawthorn trades separate to the Geelong pick exchanges? They weren't part of the same trade?

The pick 47 we got from Hawthorn, they only got in the Hallahan trade earlier in the day. Hawthorn were after a pick in the 30's for Hallahan. They were probably shopping their picks around before doing their deal with us. We were well into Lowden and Cheney. This was documented at the beginning of the day. Then Conners dropped about midday that the Lowden/Cheney trade should go through. We were clearly working on it all day.... and we had talked to Cheney over the weekend prior to week 2.

We could not possibly offload pick 47 to Geelong any sooner as we only officially got it about 10 mins earlier acvording to the news feeds.

Trading for the sake of trading arguments sound like a nice criticism to make to score Purple some media points or to score internetz pointz, but we were well into these 2 players before the last day.

10 mins is not enough to "scramble" a last minute pick swap ad hoc, I wouldn't have thought. Adelaide would have had to line this up prior to the Cheney/Lowden trade.

I know it wasn't a last minute desperation thing!

Why do you keep saying this?

We'd been working on it for a while, needed the dominos to fall.

I'm asking WHY did we think the pick exchange was a good idea in the first place?

If we think top ten / top fourteen.... same diff. But thirty something vs forty something.... that's some sweet action!

Seems silly. Surely the pointy end is the most important and the closer you are to it the better. I'd much prefer to have done what Geelong did.

 

[Cap]

You just know we're going to see players 10, 11, 12 and 13 get compared to our guy their whole career. Like Tambling, they've needlessly got pressure on them before they've even started.

Except there's four of them.

But lets face it, only simpletons like Rucci and the people that read his shit even think like that.

 

[Hank93]

Top of draft fairly accurate (but always some Mackie/Howard surprises no matter how good anyone's intel is) then less accurate as it goes on. This is why I would love us to put our credibility on the line and say the player(s) we're expecting to nab with this strategy. I know we won't but we'll say afterwards that it worked regardless of what happens.


Again, I might be wrong here because I really wasn't following everything that closely but weren't the Hawthorn trades separate to the Geelong pick exchanges? They weren't part of the same trade?


I know it wasn't a last minute desperation thing!

Why do you keep saying this?

We'd been working on it for a while, needed the dominos to fall.

I'm asking WHY did we think the pick exchange was a good idea in the first place?

If we think top ten / top fourteen.... same diff. But thirty something vs forty something.... that's some sweet action!

Seems silly. Surely the pointy end is the most important and the closer you are to it the better. I'd much prefer to have done what Geelong did.

Both trades weren't part of the same deal, but you could say they were part of the same strategy.

 

[LiquidCrow]

I'm asking WHY did we think the pick exchange was a good idea in the first place?

If we think top ten / top fourteen.... same diff. But thirty something vs forty something.... that's some sweet action!

Seems silly. Surely the pointy end is the most important and the closer you are to it the better. I'd much prefer to have done what Geelong did.

The club probably thinks that it is important to stay in the second round of the draft, especially given the past sanctions. If we look at last year when West Coast traded out Picks 6 and 44 to the Pies for 11, 31 and 49. It seemed a strange move at the time, but as the trade period continued it became more obvious that they were targeting Sheed who they correctly predicted would still be around at 11 as well as dealing with Brisbane for Yeo who was traded in for 28.

We've just done a similar thing in a different order - Cheney/Lowden for a pick 31, then traded ourselves back into the second round. In isolation, the swap of picks doesn't make much sense but I think it fits with the overall strategy.

 

[sbenno]

I don't know if I'm missing something here but surely we could have done the trade with Hawthorn then not done the pick exchange with Geelong

Yeah, that was a possibility, but obviously the club wanted to stay in the second round.

We've cut a lot of players this year and we don't really want to be replacing them with a 5th round pick. I guess the club saw it as a trade off - keep 10 and select into the 5th round, or downgrade to 14, pick up another second rounder and only go to the 4th round.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[craig crowing]

We will welcome 9 new players to club which is exciting .
So can only hope we get some real depth in club and cover the many weaknesses we have and maybe 1 or 2 elite players.
I would like to see a KPP player with some experience get added and as many said lets get some speed -- speed more speed.
Don't know enough about young draft players but just hope we use pick 14 well and back up with 35.

 

[Dredd]

Thanks very much! You're a legend. Happy with Lowden and Cheney, but skeptical at the trade with Geelong.

Disappointed with the Battersby delisting, thought he polled well in the ressies BnF and racked up heaps of possessions. Hopefully we keep Kelly.

secured O'keefe and Teague on the coaching panel also FYI

 

[FR0GGY]

I don't get why rounds are so important. Talent doesn't magically downgrade from end of first round to start of second.

 

[Mattrox]

I don't know if I'm missing something here but surely we could have done the trade with Hawthorn then not done the pick exchange with Geelong

No, we didn't have to. But we wanted to upgrade our 2nd pick. Is it reasonable to want to get into the 1st 2 rounds of the draft after missing out for two years?

It had to be preplanned and set up to go for it to happen in time on like that. It can't have been spur of the moment as there were no "moments" left.

2 players while maintaining 4 picks inside the 1st 3 rounds. That's a pretty good outcome.

 

[Apsaalooke]

I don't get why rounds are so important. Talent doesn't magically downgrade from end of first round to start of second.

Imagine what Sloaney would be like if only he had been picked up a round earlier

 

[Tex200]

No, we didn't have to. But we wanted to upgrade our 2nd pick. Is it reasonable to want to get into the 1st 2 rounds of the draft after missing out for two years?

It had to be preplanned and set up to go for it to happen in time on like that. It can't have been spur of the moment as there were no "moments" left.

2 players while maintaining 4 picks inside the 1st 3 rounds. That's a pretty good outcome.

I think the point is though that clearly the acquisition of the 2 Box Hill players is tied up with the slip from 10-14. We lost our 31 in that exchange so to compensate we did that deal and got back into the second roun

Now we are told that the 10-14 slip doesn't matter and that we will get who we want anyway. This is either true and makes it a good trade in so far as it devalues the Box Hill acquisitions, or it's spin which makes them potentially very expensive but another hit we have to take to try and rebuild a crippled list.

The issue here, at least for me, is a lack of faith/trust - good strategy or spin? At least we know whoever we get will be an incredible bonus as we will just be amazed that they were still there.

 

[Elite Crow]

No, we didn't have to. But we wanted to upgrade our 2nd pick. Is it reasonable to want to get into the 1st 2 rounds of the draft after missing out for two years?

It had to be preplanned and set up to go for it to happen in time on like that. It can't have been spur of the moment as there were no "moments" left.

2 players while maintaining 4 picks inside the 1st 3 rounds. That's a pretty good outcome.

No it's not but if you miss out on a star who went at pick 10,11,12 and 13 who is better than the player you get at 14, then you should start looking for a new job because you took a gamble and it didn't pay off.

 

[TexFactor]

we wouldn't have voluntarily given up a top ten pick if we weren't sure it was gonna work out ok. I doubt nobes wants to **** up his first assignment walsh gives him.
to me, we are targeting someone who is expected to go 15-20 and spending pick 10 to get that guy was overs so we traded it to get back into the 2nd round...time will tell.

 

[Slippery Pete]

I don't get why rounds are so important. Talent doesn't magically downgrade from end of first round to start of second.

Bloody salient.

 

[TexFactor]

No it's not but if you miss out on a star who went at pick 10,11,12 and 13 who is better than the player you get at 14, then you should start looking for a new job because you took a gamble and it didn't pay off.

every decision is a gamble. no one wins every time.
no one would have a job.