Mega Thread Delist/Trade/Draft Super-mega-ultrathread

[dajesmac]

But you're sandwiching two questions together.

Let's say we lose a good player for pick 60 and we all know we've been shafted. But we somehow pluck a decent player with that late pick. That doesn't mean a shitty deal was actually a good deal. It just means we drafted well. The trade itself would still suck for us.

Hawthorn lost Clint Young to free agency and got a ridiculously low pick as compensation. Everyone agrees they got screwed. But if they end up drafting a decent player with that pick, does that mean they won the exchange?

Hell no, they still got shafted on the compensation. Should they end up finding a decent player with that pick, that is a separate issue. It won't mean that they got value for Young, though. The pick they got in return was still disastrously low, regardless of the quality of the player they end up using it on.

That won't change the fact we got unders for our player.

Actually, that's pretty much what it means. We lost a player we wanted and were poorly compensated. It was a bad deal for us. Period. Whatever happens with McInnes is a separate issue.

If Hawthorn had been given a first rounder for Young, and they blew it on a spud - I disagree that you could then consider that a win from that exchange.

The point we disagree on is what constitutes a 'trade win'. Personally I think it's relevant what the drafted player goes on to become, and how it benefits the team both in the long and short term. Port still afforded us the opportunity to draft McInnes, even if they didn't hand him over directly. You can't just look at the picks involved in the trade and say 'okay yeah that's a win for that club'. You could use that approach to determine whether or not the trade was fair, but not which club got the better end of the deal overall.

I completely agree that the Ebert trade was slanted in Port's favour, we certainly got unders and it wasn't an equal exchange. However if McInnes becomes a better player than Ebert (not necessarily suggesting he will) then I still don't see how we could not have still managed to get the better of the exchange.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Ok. So what I think Dargie is saying is that the trades need to be taken in isolation and judged on face value. What we then do with the picks is irrelevant to the trade itself.

I agree with this.

Indeed.

You can get a shitty trade deal but then turn it into something decent if you draft well with late picks.

Doesn't change the fact the initial deal was shitty.

 

[dajesmac]

Ok. So what I think Dargie is saying is that the trades need to be taken in isolation and judged on face value. What we then do with the picks is irrelevant to the trade itself.

I agree with this.

To determine if it is fair. Not whether or not we got the better end of the trade.

If Ebert suffers a career ending injury next season we would have dodged a massive bullet. For example.

 

[Bob Fossil]

If a fat girl falls down in the woods would the trees laugh?

 

[QS]

At least we didn't trade away Andrew McLeod for nowt.

 

[Ian Dargie]

If Hawthorn had been given a first rounder for Young, and they blew it on a spud - I disagree that you could then consider that a win from that exchange.

Huh?

First round pick for Young - that's total value. Can't complain about that compensation.

The issue then becomes whether Hawthorn draft well.

Again, you are conflating two separate issues.

The point we disagree on is what constitutes a 'trade win'.

Sure. I am talking about the trade and you are factoring in stuff that has nothing to do with the trade.

Personally I think it's relevant what the drafted player goes on to become, and how it benefits the team both in the long and short term.

That has nothing to do with the trade.

Port still afforded us the opportunity to draft McInnes, even if they didn't hand him over directly.

No. They gave us a pick, which was unders for the player they got in return.

McInnes then fell to us because other clubs overlooked him and we decided we wanted him. Nothing to do with Port. Two completely separate processes.

You can't just look at the picks involved in the trade and say 'okay yeah that's a win for that club'.

Why not?

That's how you assess the balance of a trade.

If someone comes along next year and offers pick 30 for Shuey, do you assess that based on the relative value of pick 30 and Shuey or do you sit around scratching your chin wondering about the player we might draft at 30?

No, you look at Shuey and you look at pick 30 and conclude it would be a bad trade for us because, even allowing for the possibility of drafting a good player with that pick, Shuey is worth more than pick 30. If another club got Shuey for pick 30, that would be a win for that club. It's that simple.

I completely agree that the Ebert trade was slanted in Port's favour, we certainly got unders and it wasn't an equal exchange. However if McInnes becomes a better player than Ebert (not necessarily suggesting he will) then I still don't see how we could not have still managed to get the better of the exchange.

Because we got unders for our player and McIness's development won't change that.

 

[Ian Dargie]

To determine if it is fair. Not whether or not we got the better end of the trade.

Fair doesn't mean anything. It's about value.

And you determine value according to the components of the trade, not stuff that happens later.

If Ebert suffers a career ending injury next season we would have dodged a massive bullet. For example.

We would still have lost Ebert for unders.

If you buy a house for $500,000 and sell it for $300,000, that's a bad deal. If the house burns down a year later, it doesn't mean it was a good deal.

 

[bodazoka]

Indeed.

You can get a shitty trade deal but then turn it into something decent if you draft well with late picks.

Doesn't change the fact the initial deal was shitty.

Doesnt the value of the pick directly relate to the player chosen at that pick, or more accurately the possibility of picking a decent player at that pick?

How else would you know what the value of pick 3 is?

 

[Ian Dargie]

Doesnt the value of the pick directly relate to the player chosen at that pick?

No.

Pick 1 isn't worth less than pick 2 because Melbourne picked Watts and we picked Naitanui.

Draft picks are about opportunity. Pick 1 is worth more than pick 2 because of the value of the opportunity, not because you are guaranteed a better player.

How else would you know what the value of pick 3 is?

The value of pick 3 is incrementally less than the value of pick 1 and pick 2 but incrementally more than the value of pick 4.

 

[bodazoka]

No.

Pick 1 isn't worth less because Melbourne used it on Jack Watts.

Draft picks are about opportunity. Pick 1 is worth more than pick 2 because of the value of the opportunity, not because you are guaranteed a better player.

The value of pick 3 is incrementally less than the value of pick 1 and pick 2 but incrementally more than the value of pick 4.

Pick 1 is worth whatever chance you have at pick 1 in picking up a superstar I dont believe it is devalued based on the actual player picked, which is what I thought I said in my post? and what you are saying above which I agree with.

I also believe the actual statistical value of pick 3 is very close or even better than pick 1? obviously on paper you would think otherwise and would be able to argue for it but in real life I dont think there has been much difference between those picks. Is that worth factoring into the true value IRL of pick 1?

 

[bodazoka]

Sorry just realized you would of quoted me before I edited my post to be more clear.

 

[dajesmac]

Fair doesn't mean anything. It's about value.

And you determine value according to the components of the trade, not stuff that happens later.

We would still have lost Ebert for unders.

If you buy a house for $500,000 and sell it for $300,000, that's a bad deal. If the house burns down a year later, it doesn't mean it was a good deal.

Selling a house for $300, 000 is far better than keeping it and having it burn down.

Your loss would be $200, 000 instead of $500, 000.

And I just meant fair in terms of value. We got paid unders but that doesn't mean we can't get the better of the deal.

If McInnes turns out better than Ebert, we would be better off than if we had never made the trade. Regardless of whether or not it seemed fair at the time.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Pick 1 is worth whatever chance you have at pick 1 in picking up a superstar I dont believe it is devalued based on the actual player picked, which is what I thought I said in my post? and what you are saying above which I agree with.

The value of pick 1, in relation to the value of pick 2 and so on down the line, is fixed in that order.

Sometimes the player at pick 2 is better than the player at pick 1, but the value of the picks remains the same, because the value is determined by the quality of the opportunity rather than the quality of the players picked in those positions.

I also believe the actual statistical value of pick 3 is very close or even better than pick 1?

Pick 1 is, by definition, more valuable because, with that pick, you get to choose between the guy who goes at 3 and two other highly rated kids. At pick 3, two of those kids are gone, so that pick is, by definition, less valuable than those before it.

 

[Shupe]

Selling a house for $300, 000 is far better than keeping it and having it burn down.

Your loss would be $200, 000 instead of $500, 000.

And I just meant fair in terms of value. We got paid unders but that doesn't mean we can't get the better of the deal.

If McInnes turns out better than Ebert, we would be better off than if we had never made the trade. Regardless of whether or not it seemed fair at the time.

The only way to judge this is with hindsight. Unfortunately we don't get the benefit of that when deciding whether or not to accept a poor deal.

 

[bodazoka]

The value of pick 1, in relation to the value of pick 2 and so on down the line, is fixed in that order.

Sometimes the player at pick 2 is better than the player at pick 1, but the value of the picks remains the same, because the value is determined by the quality of the opportunity rather than the quality of the players picked in those positions.

Pick 1 is, by definition, more valuable because, with that pick, you get to choose between the guy who goes at 3 and two other highly rated kids. At pick 3, two of those kids are gone, so that pick is, by definition, less valuable than those before it.

I totally agree with all of the above.

However if you want the true value of pick 1 not just the value on paper you would need to look at the statistics of those picked at pick 1 compared with pick 2. Other wise you are ommiting some important information when understanding the actual real value of the pick you recieve.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Selling a house for $300, 000 is far better than keeping it and having it burn down.

Your loss would be $200, 000 instead of $500, 000.

One is not related to the other.

Selling a house for a net loss is still a bad deal. That it later burned down doesn't alter that.

And I just meant fair in terms of value. We got paid unders but that doesn't mean we can't get the better of the deal.

Sorry, but I've explained it as cogently as I can.

I have no axe to grind with you but I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

A bad trade is a bad trade. What happens down the line is a separate issue and has nothing to do with whether it was a good trade or not.

If McInnes turns out better than Ebert, we would be better off than if we had never made the trade. Regardless of whether or not it seemed fair at the time.

It would still have been a bad trade because we got unders for our player.

The subsequent development of McInness doesn't alter that.

 

[dajesmac]

The only way to judge this is with hindsight. Unfortunately we don't get the benefit of that when deciding whether or not to accept a poor deal.

Of course.

I never disputed we got a bad deal for Ebert. Just that we can't rule ourselves out of having gotten the better outcome.

 

[dajesmac]

One is not related to the other.

Selling a house for a net loss is still a bad deal. That is later burned down doesn't alter that.

Sorry, but I've explained it as cogently as I can.

I have no axe to grind with you but I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

A bad trade is a bad trade. What happens down the line is a separate issue and has nothing to do with whether it was a good trade or not.

It would still have been a bad trade because we got unders for our player.

The subsequent development of McInness doesn't alter that.

As I just said in reply to another post - I don't dispute that it was a bad deal.

 

[Ian Dargie]

However if you want the true value of pick 1 not just the value on paper you would need to look at the statistics of those picked at pick 1 compared with pick 2.

There's no such thing as "true value". It's all relative.

The players picked are irrelevant. The good players picked at 2 were available at 1, weren't they?

So we come back to this truism: the value of picks is determined by the quality of opportunity they afford. That is what determines the value of pick 1, relative to pick 2 and so on down the line.

 

[Ian Dargie]

As I just said in reply to another post - I don't dispute that it was a bad deal.

OK, so it was a bad deal.

Hopefully, the player we drafted with that pick turns out to be good.

But even in that event, it will still have been a bad deal.

 

[SpaceClef]

The value of pick 3 is incrementally less than the value of pick 1 and pick 2 but incrementally more than the value of pick 4.

What's your opinion on the value of pick 18 in comparison to Wellingham? I can see where boda is coming from in that people often compare what has previously constituted a pick to gauge the value of the opportunity, as you put it. But you seem to be advocating a sort of objective value of a pick, independent to whatever that pick is used for (or has been used for previously).

Varying interpretations of pick value (independent to needs/relative to needs/relative to past picks/relative to draft strength) were at the heart of the Wellingham trade debate. It seems difficult to separate trade value from other factors.

Edit - I see you kinda answered that while I was typing

 

[Shupe]

Of course.

I never disputed we got a bad deal for Ebert. Just that we can't rule ourselves out of having gotten the better outcome.

Better overall outcome from the whole scenario? Yeah, maybe. Better outcome from the trade itself? No.

This is all just going around in circles. I think the trade needs to be looked at in isolation, whereas others think that you don't know the full value of the trade until several years later.

 

[dajesmac]

OK, so it was a bad deal.

Hopefully, the player we drafted with that pick turns out to be good.

But even in that event, it will still have been a bad deal.

Sure. I've said a few times that I agree we got unders for Ebert.

However, if McInnes ends up the better player - we will be better off than if we had never made the exchange. That's my personal interpretation of what a trade 'win' or 'loss' is - not necessarily whether we were given market value at the time.

 

[dajesmac]

Better overall outcome from the whole scenario? Yeah, maybe. Better outcome from the trade itself? No.

This is all just going around in circles. I think the trade needs to be looked at in isolation, whereas others think that you don't know the full value of the trade until several years later.

Better outcome of the deal. Which is what the case would be if McInnes ends up better than Ebert.

 

[Shupe]

What's your opinion on the value of pick 18 in comparison to Wellingham? I can see where boda is coming from in that people often compare what has previously constituted a pick to gauge the value of the opportunity, as you put it. But you seem to be advocating a sort of objective value of a pick, independent to whatever that pick is used for (or has been used for previously).

Varying interpretations of pick value (independent to needs/relative to needs/relative to past picks/relative to draft strength) were at the heart of the Wellingham trade debate. It seems difficult to separate trade value from other factors.

Edit - I see you kinda answered that while I was typing

One of my biggest pet peeves is when people go on and list the past 10 number 18 picks when trying to determine if the trade was of value. This same goes with everything.

It has nothing to do with those selected at pick 18. It has everything to do with those who were AVAILABLE at pick 18 in each draft, which is obviously hundreds of players.