Recommitted Eric Mackenzie

[Cuzdup]

The club won't let Emac go. Brown will walk though which is fine

 

[Obeanie1]

He also can't get a game at WC and played poorly in the 2nds.

Returning from a knee down on confidence. Confidence can return and he's proven and named in the AA squad twice.

What has a 3rd round pick got? Unproven potential.

So the club gets a 2nd rounder or a player of similar status or we keep him.

He's contracted, we may see McGovern playing in the ruck next year and need EMac.

 

[Obeanie1]

If I've figured correctly, our second pick would be around pick 25. Would that get a deal for McKenzie across the line?

I'd say that would get it done.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The general point of the comment was that Lions weren't completely ripped off in trading Yeo, as what they brought in with the pick they got looks around the mark of what Yeo can bring.

That's not how you assess the balance of a trade.

If WC accepted pick 50 for Liam Duggan but then drafted a superior player with that pick 50, would that make the original deal a good one?

No. It wouldn't. It would mean two unrelated things occurred. The first would be a shitty deal for Duggan. The second would be a drafting coup with a relatively late pick. The second does not rehabilitate the first.

 

[bUCKET__]

That's not how you assess the balance of a trade.

If WC accepted pick 50 for Liam Duggan but then drafted a superior player with that pick 50, would that make the original deal a good one?

No. It wouldn't. It would mean two unrelated things occurred. The first would be a shitty deal for Duggan. The second would be a drafting coup with a relatively late pick. The second does not rehabilitate the first.

If we accepted pick 50 for Eric Mackenzie (i.e. because he wanted out for more opportunity) and we managed to draft a superior player with that pick (i.e. a superior player was identified as likely to be available in the draft), I would be very happy with that deal as a supporter.

I am having trouble understanding how factoring in what the pick can buy is completely unrelated in assessing the worth of a trade. I would have thought the recruiting department would weigh up what that pick could net a team before signing off on the trade. Obviously if it was pure chance that the second move came off, the first move would be worrying. But I didn't think that recruiting departments made decisions discretely, and independently without taking into account a broader recruitment strategy. E.g. trading down a pick without understanding what those picks could buy. I am glad that you are here to correct my understanding.

Alas, my poor limited intellect. Carry on without me, I am not up to understanding the complexities of which you speak.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If we accepted pick 50 for Eric Mackenzie (i.e. because he wanted out for more opportunity) and we managed to draft a superior player with that pick (i.e. a superior player was identified as likely to be available in the draft), I would be very happy with that deal as a supporter..

Again, there are two things going on there. They are not connected.

The first is the deal for Mackenzie. Is pick 50 sufficient? The second is what you end up getting with the pick. Sure, you might get lucky with pick 50 but that doesn't make the original deal any better.

I'm not sure why you needed to introduce a different player to reiterate this.

I am having trouble understanding how factoring in what the pick can buy is completely unrelated in assessing the worth of a trade.

Clearly. But see above and maybe the penny will drop.

I would have thought the recruiting department would weigh up what that pick could net a team before signing off on the trade.

Sure. But that's not the same as the actual outcome.

Alas, my poor limited intellect. Carry on without me, I am not up to understanding the complexities of which you speak.

Indeed.

 

[Play by Numbers]

If we accepted pick 50 for Eric Mackenzie (i.e. because he wanted out for more opportunity) and we managed to draft a superior player with that pick (i.e. a superior player was identified as likely to be available in the draft), I would be very happy with that deal as a supporter.

I am having trouble understanding how factoring in what the pick can buy is completely unrelated in assessing the worth of a trade. I would have thought the recruiting department would weigh up what that pick could net a team before signing off on the trade. Obviously if it was pure chance that the second move came off, the first move would be worrying. But I didn't think that recruiting departments made decisions discretely, and independently without taking into account a broader recruitment strategy. E.g. trading down a pick without understanding what those picks could buy. I am glad that you are here to correct my understanding.

Alas, my poor limited intellect. Carry on without me, I am not up to understanding the complexities of which you speak.

They are independant events.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

They are independant events.

Wait. What?

 

[bodazoka]

That's unrealistic.
2nd the best you would get

Then whats the point of trading him?

 

[royalsfan]

Haven't seen much of him this year, hence the question.

Ok, so then the offer is pick 43!

Just a tip - never listen to a Fremantle supporter when it comes to anything Eagles

 

[ROYAL EAGLE]

Why are you acting like you actually do the deals?

Just being grumpy over Redden, and having some banter with blueiris nothing serious
Way to early at the moment to know what will happen

 

[StCicatriz]

would you do it for a future 2nd?

 

[Play by Numbers]

Wait. What?

Success of draftee is not dependant on the quality of traded player.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Success of draftee is not dependant on the quality of traded player.

Mind blown.

 

[getgaff]

Really interesting to see what happens with Mackeznie. Think either one of him or Brown won't be at the club next year due to the emergence in 2015 and 2016 of McGovern, Barrass (basically fighting for same positions) and to a lesser extent the surety of Sheppard in the back 6.

Ideally one could be put into a package to gain Lobb from GWS. With Patfull nearing retirement and Tomlinson in a way still learning to play KPD at AFL level I think there'd be some interest.

 

[FromOldFitzroy]

And what has Yeo delivered? Very inconsistent and failed in finals.

Pick 28 isn't nothing, it landed you Taylor.

I'd be happy to send Yeo back for pick 28 or Taylor.

Can we really swap Taylor for Yeo? Please

 

[Obeanie1]

Can we really swap Taylor for Yeo? Please

It's darn tempting from our end don't you worry.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Really interesting to see what happens with Mackeznie. Think either one of him or Brown won't be at the club next year due to the emergence in 2015 and 2016 of McGovern, Barrass (basically fighting for same positions) and to a lesser extent the surety of Sheppard in the back 6.

Ideally one could be put into a package to gain Lobb from GWS.

Isn't Brown a free agent?

 

[JohnW]

The first is the deal for Mackenzie. Is pick 50 sufficient?

Indeed.

The answer to this questions is dependent on who the club thinks will be available at that pick. If every player the club is interested in will be gone by pick 50 then it would be deemed insufficient.

While the trading of Mackenzie, and the use of any return draft pick are two independent events, the worth or attractiveness of trading of Mackenzie to obtain a draft pick is determined by who you may be able to draft.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The answer to this questions is dependent on who the club thinks will be available at that pick. If every player the club is interested in will be gone by pick 50 then it would be deemed insufficient.

That may be a partial consideration but it's really pretty hard to predict who'll be there at 50. At that point, you're hoping for a slider. So there is massive uncertainty around which attractive prospects will still be available and, of course, whether they'll make it as a player.

And merely considering who will be available when weighing such a trade is not the same as the actual outcome of who the club drafts and whether they end up being any good. That's not something you can project with real confidence.

So in the end, it's still a case of Mackenzie for pick 50 – not Mackenzie for whoever gets taken there. And that would still be a poor deal. Even if that player taken at 50 turns out to be a superstar, that would be a separate, independent event that does not redeem the initial trade.

I find it remarkable that there is resistance to such an obvious truism.

While the trading of Mackenzie, and the use of any return draft pick are two independent events, the worth or attractiveness of trading of Mackenzie to obtain a draft pick is determined by who you may be able to draft.

See above.

A bad trade that returns a late pick doesn't become a good trade just because a team pulls a rabbit out of the hat with that late pick. That's a shitty trade followed by a drafting coup. It doesn't make sense to conflate the two.

 

[Mofra]

Returning from a knee down on confidence. Confidence can return and he's proven and named in the AA squad twice.

Cool. Minson was AA a couple of years ago. Straight swap?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Cool. Minson was AA a couple of years ago. Straight swap?

We'll throw in Chad Fletcher.

 

[JohnW]

That may be a partial consideration but it's really pretty hard to predict who'll be there at 50. At that point, you're hoping for a slider. So there is massive uncertainty around which attractive prospects will still be available and, of course, whether they'll make it as a player.

And merely considering who will be available when weighing such a trade is not the same as the actual outcome of who the club drafts and whether they end up being any good. That's not something you can project with real confidence.

So in the end, it's still a case of Mackenzie for pick 50 – not Mackenzie for whoever gets taken there. And that would still be a poor deal. Even if that player taken at 50 turns out to be a superstar, that would be a separate, independent event that does not redeem the initial trade.

I find it remarkable that there is resistance to such an obvious truism.

See above.

A bad trade that returns a late pick doesn't become a good trade just because a team pulls a rabbit out of the hat with that late pick. That's a shitty trade followed by a drafting coup. It doesn't make sense to conflate the two.

I understand your logic, but you can not totally remove what you will be doing/who you will be drafting with the pick. The outcome of the pick does not determine Mackenzie's value, I agree, but it does have a direct correlation with the clubs desire to trade him for that pick.

If the recruiters/scouts had the view that all of the top 50 would end up better than Mackenzie (obviously exaggerating to make my point) do you think that would effect our willlingness to make such a trade?

Now if they thought that no one after pick 25 was likely to play over 25 AFL games do you think that would have an impact on a trade where we may receive pick 50?

If the recruiters have told the club that we do not see any players worth picking up after pick 50, the club would apply significantly less value to a pick that falls after it. No one is suggesting (we I am not) that how a player develops that was taken with a pick we received for trading Mackenzie determines how good/bad the trade was.

I am saying that a club will value picks in certain ranges higher/lower based on who they assume will be available at those picks, so therefor who they assume will be available at pick 50 has an impact on a trade where we would receive pick 50.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I understand your logic, but you can not totally remove what you will be doing/who you will be drafting with the pick. The outcome of the pick does not determine Mackenzie's value, I agree, but it does have a direct correlation with the clubs desire to trade him for that pick.

But the club doesn't know the outcome when they're doing the deal.

They have to assess the value of the pick and the balance of the trade without knowing what it will yield.

If the recruiters/scouts had the view that all of the top 50 would end up better than Mackenzie (obviously exaggerating to make my point) do you think that would effect our willlingness to make such a trade?

That's a ridiculous hypothetical and it doesn't take into account the massive uncertainty around late draft picks.

You're acting like recruiters can project with real confidence whether a kid taken at 40 or 50 will make it. It's crazy talk.

Now if they thought that no one after pick 25 was likely to play over 25 AFL games do you think that would have an impact on a trade where we may receive pick 50?

Again, couching everything in a certainty that is unjustified.

No one is suggesting (we I am not) that how a player develops that was taken with a pick we received for trading Mackenzie determines how good/bad the trade was.

Actually, that was the origin of the discussion. Another poster suggested WC got Yeo in return for Taylor, when in fact WC traded a draft pick that was used to select Taylor. I made the point that these are two independent events.

I am saying that a club will value picks in certain ranges higher/lower based on who they assume will be available at those picks, so therefor who they assume will be available at pick 50 has an impact on a trade where we would receive pick 50.

And the trade would still be Mackenzie for pick 50. That's a bad trade, regardless of who gets drafted with that selection.

Even if they think there's a kid with some potential who might still be there at 50, the trade is still Mackenzie for pick 50 and that would still be unders. Even if that kid taken at 50 ends up being the next Dane Swan, the initial trade would still have been unders.

 

[JohnW]

Why would it be unders? I am guess because you think the chance of getting an AFL quality player at pick 50 is low?