Recommitted Eric Mackenzie

[Sweet Jesus]

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

Because draft picks become progressively less valuable from one to the next. There is less opportunity attached to pick 10 than there is to pick 1 and so on down the line. By the time you get to 50, that value of opportunity has diminished significantly, to the point that it would be an inadequate return in a trade for an established player – in this case, Mackenzie.

That's not to say you definitely won't get a player with that pick. But on face value, it's not enough.

 

[Frankmagpie]

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

Clokey def worth a first rounder going by mofras logic couple AA best and fairest and few times leading goal kicker jeeez better make that a top 5 pick

My appologies mofra wasnt you logic but previous post

 

[Mofra]

Clokey def worth a first rounder going by mofras logic couple AA best and fairest and few times leading goal kicker jeeez better make that a top 5 pick

I was clearly being facetious.

No wonder Collingwood fans have a reputation.

 

[Frankmagpie]

I was clearly being facetious.

No wonder Collingwood fans have a reputation.

So was i
minson for cloke??

 

[Mofra]

So was i
minson for cloke??

Where do we sign?

 

[JohnW]

Because draft picks become progressively less valuable from one to the next. There is less opportunity attached to pick 10 than there is to pick 1 and so on down the line. By the time you get to 50, that value of opportunity has diminished significantly, to the point that it would be an inadequate return in a trade for an established player – in this case, Mackenzie.

That's not to say you definitely won't get a player with that pick. But on face value, it's not enough.

Or simply put the player you are most likely to draft at that pick, is unlikely to be that good?

Or another way of saying that would be that the player you think you are going to draft or be able to draft dictates the value of the pick.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Or simply put the player you are most likely to draft at that pick, is unlikely to be that good?

Are you inaccurately paraphrasing my post in the hope it suits your argument?

I've outlined how we can assess the value of draft picks and we can also look at history as a guide to how the market values them.

There's no point feeding me your argument in the hope I won't notice that it's not what I said. That's not a very skilled way to make a rebuttal.

Or another way of saying that would be that the player you think you are going to draft or be able to draft dictates the value of the pick.

Clubs don't know who they're going to draft with that pick. And they certainly don't know how they're going to turn out. Again, you couch this assessment in certainty when it is totally unjustified. Clubs don't know in advance what they'll be getting with pick 50. I don't know why you keep suggesting otherwise.

 

[JohnW]

They have an idea don't they? Or at the least have a wish list.

We all agree (I assume) and understand why the value of each pick lessens as the number of the pick increases. And I may have come into the convo part way through and concede I have not read ever post, but surely each club values each pick on the likely hood of them having the opportunity to draft a player on their wish list.

Yes we all know that no one can guarantee that xyz player will be available at xyz pick, but the value of a pick should directly relate to each clubs thoughts on who should or could be available when they are "on the clock".

 

[JohnW]

Also I never said a club would know for certain who they are going to draft at a certain pick, but I would be surprised if they didn't have a pretty good idea.

See the Dom Sheed, and trading down in the draft scenario. That wasn't luck.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

They have an idea don't they? Or at the least have a wish list.

A wish list? That's pretty different to agreeing a trade based on a real expectation of who they'll draft and whether that kid will turn out to be any good.

Ultimately, they have to assess the value of the draft pick on face value, without the guesswork of what that pick might yield.

We all agree (I assume) and understand why the value of each pick lessens as the number of the pick increases. And I may have come into the convo part way through and concede I have not read ever post, but surely each club values each pick on the likely hood of them having the opportunity to draft a player on their wish list.

Yes we all know that no one can guarantee that xyz player will be available at xyz pick, but the value of a pick should directly relate to each clubs thoughts on who should or could be available when they are "on the clock".

See above.

Ultimately, the market determines the value of draft picks and we have years of precedent as a guide.

WC would know intuitively that pick 50 is unders for Mackenzie. They wouldn't need to write out a list of 50 draftees to reach that conclusion.

Also I never said a club would know for certain who they are going to draft at a certain pick, but I would be surprised if they didn't have a pretty good idea.

See the Dom Sheed, and trading down in the draft scenario. That wasn't luck.

Was Dom Sheed taken at 50?

That is an example of a club making a very specific calculation about the difference between pick 6 and pick 11. Do you think that is comparable to a club knowing who'll be available in the middle of the third round?

At that point, clubs are likely to be much less confident about the players available.

 

[JohnW]

I never said the would know, no one said a trade would be agreed upon based on a certain player being available.

I said they would have an idea on who would be available. And if who ever they think may be available at said pick is held in high enough regard then they will value said pick higher, and it would be the exact opposite if they didn't hold the suspected available players in high regard.

Hence pick having more value in shallow drafts etc.

Anyway the long and the short of it is, I think that west coast would value picks based on the players they think would be available when it comes to using that pick.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I never said the would know, no one said a trade would be agreed upon based on a certain player being available.

I said they would have an idea on who would be available. And if who ever they think may be available at said pick is held in high enough regard then they will value said pick higher, and it would be the exact opposite if they didn't hold the suspected available players in high regard.

There's still a lot of guesswork, particularly when it comes to the question of whether the player selected will turn out to be any good. That's why clubs have to make a decision based on the face value of the pick without projecting who they'll get or how good they'll be.

If a trade involves accepting a late pick for an established player and it's clearly unders, do you really think a club is going to agree because they've identified a kid at 50 and are confident enough that he'll make it that they're willing to gamble? Why wouldn't they just push for a better pick?

Hmmm, pick 50 is clearly a shit sandwich but we think young Johnny Johnson will still be available and we just know he's going to be the next Dane Swan. So let's take that shit sandwich and hope it all works out.

Anyway the long and the short of it is, I think that west coast would value picks based on the players they think would be available when it comes to using that pick.

You're just circling back to repeat an argument when it's already been addressed.

You don't get points for adding a summary.

 

[JohnW]

So are you?

I totally disagree with your thoughts. Teams trade for draft picks with a player or players in mind then hope the draft follows their thinking.

Each to their own. You or I will never know.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So are you?

My arguments haven't been rebutted the way yours have.

You just keep reiterating your fanciful premise.

I totally disagree with your thoughts. Teams trade for draft picks with a player or players in mind then hope the draft follows their thinking.

Rubbish.

They trade for picks based on the value of the opportunity attached to them and then make a decision as events unfold on draft day.

No club is accepting pick 50, knowing it's unders, with a specific player in mind - barring F/S or academy selections. That makes no sense.

Each to their own. You or I will never know.

How mysterious.

 

[JohnW]

Total BS. No club is accepting any pick at all if they don't think there will be talent that they are interested in available.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Total BS. No club is accepting any pick at all if they don't think there will be talent that they are interested in available.

That's not the same as identifying a specific player in the third round.

At that point, there's too much uncertainty, both about who will be available and about whether they'll become decent players.

Your whole argument relies on the idea that clubs are willing to make those projections with some kind of certainty and then accept unders in a trade on that basis. It's crazy talk.

Why wouldn't they just push for a deal that reflects something closer to market value?

 

[JohnW]

Because the value of the draft pick is determined by the talent they think is going to be available. The do not trade for a pick the sit down and go hmmmm I wonder who we might be able to get around this spot.

Again no one said they identified a specific player.

No my whole argument is that clubs would target picks based on the position they feel the player/s they want are going to land.

 

[JG22]

Interesting to see how the Saints could get this done alongside Steele.
Pick 10 is a real chance to be involved in trades.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Because the value of the draft pick is determined by the talent they think is going to be available.

It's determined by the value of opportunity attached to it, but that's true regardless of who clubs think will be available. It's simply a truism that applies to every pick.

They do not trade for a pick then sit down and go hmmmm I wonder who we might be able to get around this spot.

Really? I'd suggest that's exactly what they'd be doing for later picks, obviously with some fairly detailed profiles already sketched out. And that would be adjusted on the fly once the draft starts.

I doubt they're negotiating for third-rounders with certain players in mind - barring F/S and academy selections. They're trying to get correct weight for their player. If they know that pick 50 is unders for an established player, that's unlikely to change based on some projection of who might be available there. Why wouldn't they simply push for a better pick to expand their options further?

No my whole argument is that clubs would target picks based on the position they feel the player/s they want are going to land.

Not when you're talking about mid third-rounders.

Sure, clubs will try to improve their overall draft position, taking into account how many selections they need to use, but I doubt clubs are accepting unders just because they like a player in that territory. A bad deal doesn't become a good deal just because young Jimmy Johnson has caught their eye.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Pick 10 is a real chance to be involved in trades.

OK. I will grudgingly accept pick 10 for Mackenzie.

 

[JG22]

OK. I will grudgingly accept pick 10 for Mackenzie.

10 may be involved in the Steele deal.
Take pick 32 for Mackenzie

 

[Sweet Jesus]

10 may be involved in the Steele deal.
Take pick 32 for Mackenzie

Only if you throw in Tom Lee.

 

[JG22]

Only if you throw in Tom Lee.

Done

 

[JohnW]

It's determined by the value of opportunity attached to it, but that's true regardless of who clubs think will be available. It's simply a truism that applies to every pick.

Really? I'd suggest that's exactly what they'd be doing for later picks, obviously with some fairly detailed profiles already sketched out. And that would be adjusted on the fly once the draft starts.

I doubt they're negotiating for third-rounders with certain players in mind - barring F/S and academy selections. They're trying to get correct weight for their player. If they know that pick 50 is unders for an established player, that's unlikely to change based on some projection of who might be available there. Why wouldn't they simply push for a better pick to expand their options further?

Not when you're talking about mid third-rounders.

Sure, clubs will try to improve their overall draft position, taking into account how many selections they need to use, but I doubt clubs are accepting unders just because they like a player in that territory. A bad deal doesn't become a good deal just because young Jimmy Johnson has caught their eye.

I'm done explaining my view to you, you keep believing your view I'll believe mine.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm done explaining my view to you, you keep believing your view I'll believe mine.

You confuse 'trade value' with 'use value' – and apply the latter in an unrealistic way, relying on a certainty regarding late picks that simply isn't justified.