Did Richmond make a mistake drafting (trading for) Dion Prestia?

[TigerTime88]

on the other hand prestia was originally a top 10 pick

Touché! However once a top ten pick is drafted and proves themselves they then become worth less it seems.

 

[blitzer]

Two parts to it innit, a team must have the unique culture and opportunities to allow said candidate to flourish, tho one can easily posit that Pendlebury Bontompeli and Fyfe would flourish no matter what... Devil's advocate is question 'what would have been David Swallow's ceiling under a Clarkson regime?'

I don't know so much that its unique culture and opportunities as it is avoiding the 1 or 2 clubs that can't develop players and don't have the right senior support around them. If I looked at every club right now I'd say I'd only be really concerned about Gold Coast (possibly Carlton too) but otherwise players of those calibre would push their way into the seniors very quickly and would find their way. Whether they would reach their maximum potential, well who knows.

blitzer Clarkson clearly thinks there is a diseconomy or market failure in asset pricing wrt draftees, cos u gotta price in RISK + yrs developing said player

I agree that Hawks clearly believe that is the case but they have yet to be proven correct. Hawks won their premiership around their core of drafted players, supplemented by clever trading. If they got back into the premiership hunt with their current list then it would add credence to their argument. Besides if more clubs adopt this approach then ironically the clubs that still believe in draft picks will get access to higher draft picks because clubs will be more willing to trade them. The market is always re-assessing.

Another factor is not all drafts are created equal. There are drafts that are significantly better than others. For example the 2013 draft there were potential stars everywhere and drafting was probably clearly better than trading in experienced players that year from a risk/reward perspective. There are other drafts where the talent pool is quite weak, even sometimes the top 10 can be weak. Clubs try to predict which drafts are strong and weak but it doesn't always work out.

Ultimately I don't believe draft picks are overrated. They certainly are a high risk, high reward type option though. So looking at individual trades is pretty short sighted for the overall argument.

 

[BF Tiger]

Maybe we should just start a thread... Are the Gold Coast Suns ruining the Richmond Football Club?

 

[LC_15]

Gave up pick 6 for a midget who had a crook knee and has looked absolutely cooked the past month. Slow and turns it over by foot and tends to dumble alot. I don't remember him being this bad at GC

Could have had SPP or Will Brodie for the next 10-12 years but now they have someone who has underperformed and on a huge pay packet.

Neither player is fit to shine his shoes. Hang your head in shame.

 

[blackcat]

I agree that Hawks clearly believe that is the case but they have yet to be proven correct. Hawks won their premiership around their core of drafted players, supplemented by clever trading. If they got back into the premiership hunt with their current list then it would add credence to their argument. Besides if more clubs adopt this approach then ironically the clubs that still believe in draft picks will get access to higher draft picks because clubs will be more willing to trade them. The market is always re-assessing.

Another factor is not all drafts are created equal. There are drafts that are significantly better than others. For example the 2013 draft there were potential stars everywhere and drafting was probably clearly better than trading in experienced players that year from a risk/reward perspective. There are other drafts where the talent pool is quite weak, even sometimes the top 10 can be weak. Clubs try to predict which drafts are strong and weak but it doesn't always work out.

Ultimately I don't believe draft picks are overrated. They certainly are a high risk, high reward type option though. So looking at individual trades is pretty short sighted for the overall argument.

I am not saying Clarkson is correct nether. It is an either/or fallacy(aka false dichtomy). But one year, does not make a sample, and if Clarkson is correct, market equilibrium theory would imply that any disparities rectify themself. 2013 draft, ceteris paribus, those players(as picks) should have required higher trade value to accomodate those draft picks in trades. If Clarkson can demand and be offered higher calibre players in trade for a 11th pick in that hypothetical 2013 draft, and get Shaun Burgoyne, Clarkson thinks he has won on that trade. It depends on which players he comes into on return in the exchange.

It also depends on the teams the veterans go to, and if they exploit the latent potential because the player was underperforming according to his potential, at his original team. Then they can offer the other team, a better deal on the player, as both teams can take a cut of the potential that may be exploited. So Port Adelaide can win on the Impey and Wingard deals too! That is why other teams are so content to trade with Hawthorn and not Essendon, Hawthorn can offer fair value or OVERS on the player, because they see they can exploit the difference with his current underperformance! So deals are easily done, Clarko took this MO from Belichick and New England Pats.

Essendon never studied microeconomics101 and consumer-producer surplus theory, they think they need to win on trades.

There are numerous errors there, 1. The win is never contemporaneous. The WIN at trade table, is different to how the WIN is accomplished on the field two seasons later.
2. The WIN is viewed thru a lens of this discrete trade, instead of potentially availing yourselves of future trade surpluses, as opposition teams see you as a GOOD FAITH trader/transaction-maker. You can provide liquidity in the trade market, for the future. So you need to RISK loss trades, because over the long-term perspective(calendar), you will come into many more surplus trades, as opposition accesses surplus value too, because you are see as a GOOD-FAITH trader.

 

[gcsunsfc]

The OP couldn't be more wrong. The 2 players you compared him too are fringe players at their clubs. Prestia on the other hand is an A grader and is probably leading our B&F.

It wasn't pick 6 we paid for him, so please do your research better next time. Pick 6 + future 2nd (pick 38) for Prestia and pick 24 - worth pick 10 point wise.

Do you know what happened with the other picks?
24 and 38?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[blitzer]

I am not saying Clarkson is correct nether. It is an either/or fallacy(aka false dichtomy). But one year, does not make a sample, and if Clarkson is correct, market equilibrium theory would imply that any disparities rectify themself. 2013 draft, ceteris paribus, those players(as picks) should have required higher trade value to accomodate those draft picks in trades. If Clarkson can demand and be offered higher calibre players in trade for a 11th pick in that hypothetical 2013 draft, and get Shaun Burgoyne, Clarkson thinks he has won on that trade. It depends on which players he comes into on return in the exchange.

It also depends on the teams the veterans go to, and if they exploit the latent potential because the player was underperforming according to his potential, at his original team. Then they can offer the other team, a better deal on the player, as both teams can take a cut of the potential that may be exploited. So Port Adelaide can win on the Impey and Wingard deals too! That is why other teams are so content to trade with Hawthorn and not Essendon, Hawthorn can offer fair value or OVERS on the player, because they see they can exploit the difference with his current underperformance! So deals are easily done, Clarko took this MO from Belichick and New England Pats.

Essendon never studied microeconomics101 and consumer-producer surplus theory, they think they need to win on trades.

There are numerous errors there, 1. The win is never contemporaneous. The WIN at trade table, is different to how the WIN is accomplished on the field two seasons later.
2. The WIN is viewed thru a lens of this discrete trade, instead of potentially availing yourselves of future trade surpluses, as opposition teams see you as a GOOD FAITH trader/transaction-maker. You can provide liquidity in the trade market, for the future. So you need to RISK loss trades, because over the long-term perspective(calendar), you will come into many more surplus trades, as opposition accesses surplus value too, because you are see as a GOOD-FAITH trader.

Ah ceteris paribus now there's a term I haven't heard since year 11 economics.

Recent history though would suggest that Essendon have no trouble getting deals done with successful deals being done for Shiel, Stringer, Smith and Saad over the last 2 trade periods. The Shiel deal in particular was not about getting a 'bargain' it was about getting the player we needed to fill a specific role in the team where we needed more quality. So I think your view on Essendon's trading is dated.

That point aside I do actually really like your point about latent potential. Its what makes trade and draft discussion so interesting. There are so many different perspectives and ideas as to how to judge success.

 

[Old M8]

Essendon have no trouble getting deals done

“As deadline day unfolded and Dodoro stubbornly stuck to his plan, there were stages where Shiel, 25, seriously contemplated a move to Carlton or the more likely prospect of seeing out his 2019 contract in the Harbour City.”

“Shiel confided in Giants friends as the 8.30pm deadline neared that he was frustrated by Essendon’s tactics.”

Redirect Notice

 

[Muddiemoose]

Do you know what happened with the other picks?
24 and 38?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Pretty sure we used pick 24 to pick up Shai Bolton

Not sure what Gold Coast did with 38

 

[dustysnecktattoo]

This thread and the Lynch ruin tigers thread, lol !! Oppo melty threads

 

[blackcat]

Ah ceteris paribus now there's a term I haven't heard since year 11 economics.

Recent history though would suggest that Essendon have no trouble getting deals done with successful deals being done for Shiel, Stringer, Smith and Saad over the last 2 trade periods. The Shiel deal in particular was not about getting a 'bargain' it was about getting the player we needed to fill a specific role in the team where we needed more quality. So I think your view on Essendon's trading is dated.

That point aside I do actually really like your point about latent potential. Its what makes trade and draft discussion so interesting. There are so many different perspectives and ideas as to how to judge success.

re: Shiel and Stringer and Saad and Smith, they may have been dupilcating roles at GWS, and were worth more on trade, when they would have cost greater salaries to re-up there. It was just a coincidence, I never saw your club, I don't really follow football, but I knew Essendon had a previous reputation at the trade table.

You just echoed the Alistair Clarkson MO about finding the players he requires to perform his gameplan/style. They are work more to him, than players whose value is waning at their club, for whatever multiple reason...

 

[Richo83]

In the 2016 draft, Richmond traded what ended up as pick 7 in the 2016 draft and from what I can tell, pick 38 in the 2017 draft. It then used pick 24 to trade for Caddy, and then did a pick swap.

Now, Prestia is now, arguably better than any Melbourne midfielder bar Oliver. And none of the players picked 7+ are really must get players. Bolton is arguably better than most of the players picked after the pick and the trade also resulted in Richmond getting back pick 24 which it used on Caddy. Caddy is out of form this year, having had a change in form but he's still fairly young and is capable of playing a number of roles. I at the time thought the move was bad, but especially now that Prestia is in peak form, the trade looks like a masterstroke. It did back in 2017 when the addition of Prestia just gave Richmond that added depth that helped in finals. And if you make a trade and it helps you win a premiership, you don't stare at the receipt too hard.

 

[blackcat]

as blitzer implies, (without me wanting to put words in your mouth!)

the draft aint a science. There are only 18 x 22 players (+ injuries) per round = +/- 400 players (396 actually)
average games are 30/40? and 3 seasons.

This aint a corporate career, Darwinian kill your own meal/food.

blitzer also echoes my sentiment, that the great players like Fyfe make their own success, and failure aint an option, they make the GoldCoastSuns into a perennial finalist, not the current also-ran. Ablett could not put the Suns on his back, although undoubtedly great he is.
*thats a contradiction innit?

 

[blackcat]

In the 2016 draft, Richmond traded what ended up as pick 7 in the 2016 draft and from what I can tell, pick 38 in the 2017 draft. It then used pick 24 to trade for Caddy, and then did a pick swap.

Now, Prestia is now, arguably better than any Melbourne midfielder bar Oliver. And none of the players picked 7+ are really must get players. Bolton is arguably better than most of the players picked after the pick and the trade also resulted in Richmond getting back pick 24 which it used on Caddy. Caddy is out of form this year, having had a change in form but he's still fairly young and is capable of playing a number of roles. I at the time thought the move was bad, but especially now that Prestia is in peak form, the trade looks like a masterstroke. It did back in 2017 when the addition of Prestia just gave Richmond that added depth that helped in finals. And if you make a trade and it helps you win a premiership, you don't stare at the receipt too hard.

I dont unnerstand[sic] why clubs with a bagfull of dollars have not been throwing themselves at Lambert with 7 figure contracts, to be amongst the leaders or captain GCS or back at Carlton.

For GCS, that would have been an awesome trade for them, fair trade for us, but losing Tom Lynch for Lambert, his work ethic and ability to make himself an AFL champion, could potentially have transformed the list. I think he is one of Richmond's 3 or 4 most valuable players. Dusty, Jack, Edwards, and then Lambert in my estimation. But now Prestia and Lambert are almost substitutes.

 

[Marcel Proust]

I dont unnerstand[sic] why clubs with a bagfull of dollars have not been throwing themselves with 7 figure contracts, to be amongst the leaders or captain GCS or back at Carlton.

For GCS, that would have been an awesome trade for them, fair trade for us, but losing Tom Lynch for Lambert, his work ethic and ability to make himself an AFL champion, could potentially have transformed the list. I think he is one of Richmond's 3 or 4 most valuable players. Dusty, Jack, Edwards, and then Lambert in my estimation. But now Prestia and Lambert are almost substitutes.

i dunno Rance would be pretty handy

 

[WillHayward]

Tiges paid unders for Prestia.

The bloke is an absolute gun.

 

[Marcel Proust]

2019 Richmond Total Score Involvements
Rank Name Games Total
1 Dion Prestia 118
2 Dustin Martin 117
2 Tom Lynch 117
4 Jason Castagna 100
5 Kane Lambert 97

 

[Richo83]

I dont unnerstand[sic] why clubs with a bagfull of dollars have not been throwing themselves at Lambert with 7 figure contracts, to be amongst the leaders or captain GCS or back at Carlton.

For GCS, that would have been an awesome trade for them, fair trade for us, but losing Tom Lynch for Lambert, his work ethic and ability to make himself an AFL champion, could potentially have transformed the list. I think he is one of Richmond's 3 or 4 most valuable players. Dusty, Jack, Edwards, and then Lambert in my estimation. But now Prestia and Lambert are almost substitutes.

I wouldn't call Prestia and Lambert substitutes. Prestia does a lot of important grunt work and Lambert is very creative going forward. I don't think it's a coincidence that Richmond are 10-3 with Lambert in the side and 2-3 without him. I agree though that Lambert is probably underrated by the wider community, but I don't think he has the natural talent to just become the suns' best player despite all their drama. My guess is Lambert knows that if he did go to a team like the suns, his form would wither and he'd probably become the scapegoat for much of their ills given he'd become one of their highest paid players, and lose value in the AFL community. He's not going to experience that at Richmond, meaning he's picking the team which can most protect his stock from falling.

Carlton make more sense, but their strategy is giants' youth.

 

[GoTigers2015]

Do you know what happened with the other picks?
24 and 38?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

2016 Traded Pick 24 + Pick 60 (Parfitt and Narkle) to Geelong for Caddy and pick 53 (Graham)
2017 GC traded pick 38 to WCE (Petruccelle)

 

[Barunga Bullet]

Its a pity they traded for Prestia we like trading with Richmond too... Hampson and Yarran being two standouts.

Please don't stop trading with us leave all other clubs alone. Remember you always want to rip us a new one and win in all trades.

the hampson trade was basically a draw with what you got for him, you won the yarran trade (not that cunningham has done much) but overall i think we are well ahead thanks to the Shaun Grigg for Andrew collins straight swap

 

[_jrtp09_]

the hampson trade was basically a draw with what you got for him, you won the yarran trade (not that cunningham has done much) but overall i think we are well ahead thanks to the Shaun Grigg for Andrew collins straight swap

Yeah those trade wins with the Tiges made a huge difference to the Blues fortunes, those lucky devils.

 

[The Dice Man]

I dont unnerstand[sic] why clubs with a bagfull of dollars have not been throwing themselves at Lambert with 7 figure contracts, to be amongst the leaders or captain GCS or back at Carlton.

For GCS, that would have been an awesome trade for them, fair trade for us, but losing Tom Lynch for Lambert, his work ethic and ability to make himself an AFL champion, could potentially have transformed the list. I think he is one of Richmond's 3 or 4 most valuable players. Dusty, Jack, Edwards, and then Lambert in my estimation. But now Prestia and Lambert are almost substitutes.

Fromm the way he speaks I doubt Kane would want the Captaincy and media focus on him. He appears to be the kind of player who thrives going under the radar and would rather keep it that way. As a captain at GC there's too many negative questions to face each week.

He is massive for us, one of our 5 most important IMO... and is ageing like a fine wine.

 

[Toadvine]

2019 Richmond Total Score Involvements
Rank Name Games Total
1 Dion Prestia 118
2 Dustin Martin 117
2 Tom Lynch 117
4 Jason Castagna 100
5 Kane Lambert 97

To be fair Prestia and Lynch are the only two to have played every game for us this season so it's no great feat to be leading on total score involvements.

 

[juss]

He probably hasn't been the exact player I thought he'd be when he came, but he'd be leading our best and fairest this year so far, or top 2, and has added much needed depth to a midfield that for a while was just the Cotchin/Martin show. Certainly wasn't a mistake, he was a cog in the premiership midfield and has been a strong contributor when others have been down.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

Sure but when you really hit a draft pick the value is crazy good.

Thanks Dwayne-o!!