Ok, I was having a discussion with someone, and we agreed that with Essendon's woeful recruiting circa 2000 and 2001 (and possibly 2002, hopefully not!) we would clearly have been better off trading every top 25 pick we got our hands on. I don't think anyone would argue that.
But it did raise the question - how successful would a club be if they had a policy of always trading any picks between 5 and 25?
If you look historically, there's been a few clubs do it for a short while with mixed success. Saints traded first round picks for Watts and Brooks, in hindsight they lost nothing on Watts (unless Pfeiffer blooms late), but lost big time on Brooks (Salopek I think).
In 2005, both trades in that section are ahead. Essendon traded #19 for Richards, which Sydney is currently winning (we hope Dempsey will rectify that!). But Essendon is winning the trade of #23 for Cole - since Cole cost us one less year on our list than Stanley has for Collingwood
.
Last year Woods and Johnstone were both traded for the same pick - #14.
So what kind of players would you give up from your club for a pick in the 10 to 15 range? In the 16 to 20 range? For both a pick in the #5 to #9 range AND a pick in the #21 to #25 range?
Because the quality available year on year is what would determine its success.
In my view for Essendon:
#5 to #9: Quite frankly, I don't think we have anyone worth this amount that we'd be willing to give up.
#10 to #15: Lovett, Lucas, but probably outbid since we don't have much we'd be willing to trade 'at the going price'.
#16 to #20: Again Lovett and Lucas, also McPhee, Welsh, Lonnergan.
#21 to #25: Nash, Slattery, Lonnergan
#5 to #9 AND #21 to #25: Monfies (now ), Stanton, Winderlich.
Overall, I think you could get a decent player who could contribute a lot sooner than a draftee would, and who although with doubts on the player coming in would also give you a far more certain return.
Yes there is overlap, but thats because you'd trade players for a range of values. And with Stanton and Winderlich, I don't think we want to trade them but if offered a top 10 and top 25 pick, we'd have to consider it.
I think a team could do it.
But it did raise the question - how successful would a club be if they had a policy of always trading any picks between 5 and 25?
If you look historically, there's been a few clubs do it for a short while with mixed success. Saints traded first round picks for Watts and Brooks, in hindsight they lost nothing on Watts (unless Pfeiffer blooms late), but lost big time on Brooks (Salopek I think).
In 2005, both trades in that section are ahead. Essendon traded #19 for Richards, which Sydney is currently winning (we hope Dempsey will rectify that!). But Essendon is winning the trade of #23 for Cole - since Cole cost us one less year on our list than Stanley has for Collingwood
. Last year Woods and Johnstone were both traded for the same pick - #14.
So what kind of players would you give up from your club for a pick in the 10 to 15 range? In the 16 to 20 range? For both a pick in the #5 to #9 range AND a pick in the #21 to #25 range?
Because the quality available year on year is what would determine its success.
In my view for Essendon:
#5 to #9: Quite frankly, I don't think we have anyone worth this amount that we'd be willing to give up.
#10 to #15: Lovett, Lucas, but probably outbid since we don't have much we'd be willing to trade 'at the going price'.
#16 to #20: Again Lovett and Lucas, also McPhee, Welsh, Lonnergan.
#21 to #25: Nash, Slattery, Lonnergan
#5 to #9 AND #21 to #25: Monfies (now
), Stanton, Winderlich. Overall, I think you could get a decent player who could contribute a lot sooner than a draftee would, and who although with doubts on the player coming in would also give you a far more certain return.
Yes there is overlap, but thats because you'd trade players for a range of values. And with Stanton and Winderlich, I don't think we want to trade them but if offered a top 10 and top 25 pick, we'd have to consider it.
I think a team could do it.
