Future 2nd for a future 3rd merry-go-round

[Good Degoe]

Probably win 2011 and 2012.

Probably Jesus comes back and establishes world peace too... damn you Joel Corey

 

[ottoman]

The mods should be cracking down on this just as they would when people circumvent the swear filter

If the mods start doing this then I am totally phucked.

 

[WalterBlaknWhte]

If the mods start doing this then I am totally phucked.

You so are you pu$$y-ar$ed muther phucker


Delete coming: 10, 9, 8, 7...

 

[ottoman]

My take on this is we were bent over on the deal and I hope the talent identification works so we can get something back.

The price we have paid has posters looking at Murrays potential in a very different way to if we had paid less for him. In that case he would be seen as the speculative pick he is and we would have a more realistic view about his chances of making it. The deal has warped that view in my opinion.

Re the price I see arguments trying to twist things and lessen the difference in value between 3rd and 4th round picks to soften the blow of the price. Assessing picks by rounds is a blunt instrument anyway. Pick 1 and 18 are both 1st rounders. Much more effective to think 1-10, 11-20.21-30 etc. On that basis we probably end up giving up around 25 spots in the draft, thats the likely real price and Murray just should not have cost that much.

The Swans and Harley schooled us. Once they knew we were into Murray we fell for all their moves.

If you look at Murray on face value he is
A 2 year rookie who has not threatened for a senior spot
He had a good NEAFL season in 2017 but faded at the end of the season and was a non factor in the Swans GF loss
Swans had not offered him a contact in 2017 by trade time when almost all other players on their list were tied up and contracted.
When Collingwood's interest was out and trade week underway Harley announced at a press conference the Swans were prepared to offer Murray a contract. I assume on that basis they never did actually put an offer to him.
This puts him right at the back end of their list in how they value him.

Thats all fine and we hope our talent ID is on the money and he becomes a player. But a player with that bio is much more likely not to make it at AFL level than make it. We dont have secret info on him it's just a speculative punt and for all recruiters , Hine included, this level pick has a much higher chance of not making it than making it. As a third year player he needs to make his mark in the seniors this season. If he doesnt he probably ends up out the door at the end of 2018. Thats the position he should be in.

I suspect we have paid too much and probably given him 2 years. Its poor list management even if he does make it. If he makes it it's more palatable but doesn't change we should have got him for less. If he doesn't play seniors ever it will just stink because of the price we paid where that outcome was a very likely senario.

Very well explained GC.
The problem is some people still won't get it.

 

[sr36]

Very well explained GC.
The problem is some people still won't get it.

It was well explained, but if you remove the word 'problem' and change the word 'get' to 'agree', you're right.

There is a lot of guess work going on regarding Sydney's rating of Murray and what price they would have accepted. So concluding that our negotiation was terrible is a guess. And even if they were willing to give him away for nothing and believe they fleeced us, if he comes good, we will have smashed them regarding talent identification and fleeced them.

We are way overcomplicating this argument. Yep there is debate about the value of what we paid due to different ratings of different draft picks and the further complication of academy selections from us but also other clubs. But at the end of the day, if he makes it we win, if he doesn't we lose as we will have paid a price (albeit small in my eyes) for diddly squat. Same goes with our use of Pick 6, Pick 39 and whatever Pick we used on Brown in this year's draft. Anyone who declares a winner or loser at this stage is judging prematurely.

 

[Kirby]

This is the most boring thread I've read on BF.

 

[ottoman]

It was well explained, but if you remove the word 'problem' and change the word 'get' to 'agree', you're right.

There is a lot of guess work going on regarding Sydney's rating of Murray and what price they would have accepted. So concluding that our negotiation was terrible is a guess. And even if they were willing to give him away for nothing and believe they fleeced us, if he comes good, we will have smashed them regarding talent identification and fleeced them.

We are way overcomplicating this argument. Yep there is debate about the value of what we paid due to different ratings of different draft picks and the further complication of academy selections from us but also other clubs. But at the end of the day, if he makes it we win, if he doesn't we lose as we will have paid a price (albeit small in my eyes) for diddly squat. Same goes with our use of Pick 6, Pick 39 and whatever Pick we used on Brown in this year's draft. Anyone who declares a winner or loser at this stage is judging prematurely.

Nope, you see you still don't get it.
What some people like myself are saying is that even if he wins a Brownlow medal, it doesn't change the fact that we should have got him cheaper.
It's that simple.
We should not have had to give up a second rounder.

Just like we should not have given Mayne a 4yr contract.
Don't care if Mayne comes good and ends up earning his keep. The contract should never have been offered.

What Murray ends up doing, how he ends up playing, where we end on the ladder in comparison to Sydney etc, keep all that stuff separate. The point is a very simple one.

We should not have had to give up a second rounder for him.
We got shafted.....again.

 

[ottoman]

This is the most boring thread I've read on BF.

Have you read Ben Reids' thread.
Wow, that fool will put anyone to sleep.

 

[CFC2010]

Have you read Ben Reids' thread.
Wow, that fool will put anyone to sleep.

 

[Good Degoe]

 

[sr36]

Nope, you see you still don't get it.
What some people like myself are saying is that even if he wins a Brownlow medal, it doesn't change the fact that we should have got him cheaper.
It's that simple.
We should not have had to give up a second rounder.

I get that you believe this. Do you get that you are guessing about the price that Sydney would have accepted? Do you get that if he wins a brownlow it will mean that we will have benefitted massively from the deal and thus it will be a great trade. If you pick a brownlow medallist in the second round of the draft, you haven't stuffed up, even if it comes out later that he would have been still available in the 5th round of the draft. The way I see it, the logic that you're using paints Pendlebury as a poor drafting decision because most at the time believed he wasn't worth pick 5.

 

[ottoman]

I get that you believe this. Do you get that you are guessing about the price that Sydney would have accepted? Do you get that if he wins a brownlow it will mean that we will have benefitted massively from the deal and thus it will be a great trade. If you pick a brownlow medallist in the second round of the draft, you haven't stuffed up, even if it comes out later that he would have been still available in the 5th round of the draft. The way I see it, the logic that you're using paints Pendlebury as a poor drafting decision because most at the time believed he wasn't worth pick 5.

Mate forget about what may or may not happen in the future.
You keep falling back to this line of defense.
Just assess the trade for what it was at the time.
He may well become worth a pick 1, as may Mclarty. That is not the point.
Nobody is saying he may not end up being worth it.
We are saying that given the situation we payed too much.
It doesn't matter if he becomes a brownlow medalist, if he does then the situation is that we should have a brownlow medalist and a 2nd round draft pick in the team.

Why didn't we get a second rounder for Marley. He too could become a Brownlow medalist
Why didn't we get a second rounder for Witts. He too could become a Brownlow medalist.

We give away proven AFL players for peanuts and trade in rookies for 2nd rounders. It's dumb

 

[doppleganger]

What Murray ends up doing, how he ends up playing, where we end on the ladder in comparison to Sydney etc, keep all that stuff separate. The point is a very simple one.

We should not have had to give up a second rounder for him.

The fixation on the 2nd round pick whilst ignoring what we got in return is funny.

The agree value of an object is $30, if you give over $50 but get back $20 you have paid the value.

Do people filthy up at paying $50 for something that was worth $30 because they ignore the change?

That is what people seemingly are doing in this thread by ignoring that the deal includ d us getting a 3rd round pick with Murray.

The dangerous thing about future trading is that you don't know the exact value of what you are giving up or receiving.

We are backing in ourselves to come good and Sydney perhaps slip out of the 8. If that happens the trade is fine. If we collaps and finish bottom 4 then trade was poor.

But you can't make that call now.

 

[ottoman]

The fixation on the 2nd round pick whilst ignoring what we got in return is funny.

The agree value of an object is $30, if you give over $50 but get back $20 you have paid the value.

Do people filthy up at paying $50 for something that was worth $30 because they ignore the change?

That is what people seemingly are doing in this thread by ignoring that the deal includ d us getting a 3rd round pick with Murray.

The dangerous thing about future trading is that you don't know the exact value of what you are giving up or receiving.

We are backing in ourselves to come good and Sydney perhaps slip out of the 8. If that happens the trade is fine. If we collaps and finish bottom 4 then trade was poor.

But you can't make that call now.

You're dollars example though on face value may seem logical is actually very flawed.
You see with dollars every 1 unit has the same value. So if you give up 50 of them and get back 30 of them then the real cost is 20 dollars because each unit has the same value.
It is not the same for the draft.
Would you be happy with the club trading away lets say pick 50 for two picks in the 100.
I doubt it.
But you wouldn't give a damn if someone gave you 2 fifty dollar notes for a 100 dollar note right.

 

[sr36]

Mate forget about what may or may not happen in the future.
You keep falling back to this line of defense.
Just assess the trade for what it was at the time.
He may well become worth a pick 1, as may Mclarty. That is not the point.
Nobody is saying he may not end up being worth it.
We are saying that given the situation we payed too much.
It doesn't matter if he becomes a brownlow medalist, if he does then the situation is that we should have a brownlow medalist and a 2nd round draft pick in the team.

Why didn't we get a second rounder for Marley. He too could become a Brownlow medalist
Why didn't we get a second rounder for Witts. He too could become a Brownlow medalist.

We give away proven AFL players for peanuts and trade in rookies for 2nd rounders. It's dumb

But it's all about the future.

We've used a draft pick to recruit an untried, unproven kid. Just as we did when we recruited Pendlebury and Brayden Shaw. Initial beliefs about winning and losing regarding the use of draft picks are a waste of time. Do we still consider Brayden Shaw as a massive win? Do we still consider Pendlebury a loss, like so many did at the time? Do we still consider that we were fleeced in the Howe and Varcoe trades? Whether or not it was a successful use of that pick depends on whether in the future the player performs.

If criticism of the trade was coming from those who'd seen a heap of Murray, it would be a different story, but let's face it, none of us have seen enough of him to judge whether next year a 3rd rounder and Murray is more likely to get us senior players than a 2nd rounder and a 6th rounder or whatever we'd have to use if Murray wasn't on the list next year. That to me is the only equation that matters. Views on value based on some totally different player who was traded for a totally different price in a totally different draft pool are irrelevant

We'll never know the minimum price that Sydney would have accepted. Those who actually negotiated with them clearly weren't confident that they would have accepted significantly less so I'm not sure how so many can be so adamant that they would have accepted way less.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

This is all correct except for the contract bit. Murray had been offered a rookie extension from Sydney. After Murray requested a trade the Swans were suddenly prepared to ‘offer’ Murray a senior contract. By that time though there was no way Murray was staying and they knew it, it was purely a ploy to raise his value which we fell hook line and sinker for. It was amatuerish on our part.

This bit is wrong I believe. If Sydney refused to trade him, Murray had two choices accept the contract they offered or not play in 2018.

 

[MyManLynch]

To be fair, the list managers on BigFooty got it right with Mayne. The club did not.

Sydney more than likely gave us a touch up here too in negotiations. We overpaid.

We are a very ordinary team at the moment for a reason.

I have no interest in kissing the club's ass and trusting the "experts" until they start getting it right again.

The drovers dog got that one right...

 

[MyManLynch]

Probably Jesus comes back and establishes world peace too... damn you Joel Corey

World peace is overrated.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Jesus wont be back.

I told the priest, dont count on any second coming,
God got his ass kicked the last time he came slumming,
He had the balls to come
The gall to die
And then forgive us
No I dont wonder why,
I wonder what he thought it would get us.

(my favorite lyrics....google it, great song)

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

You're dollars example though on face value may seem logical is actually very flawed.
You see with dollars every 1 unit has the same value. So if you give up 50 of them and get back 30 of them then the real cost is 20 dollars because each unit has the same value.
It is not the same for the draft.
Would you be happy with the club trading away lets say pick 50 for two picks in the 100.
I doubt it.
But you wouldn't give a damn if someone gave you 2 fifty dollar notes for a 100 dollar note right.

The logic is not flawed at all, despite the differences with hard currency the logic is similar.

Its true that we dont know the value of the third round pick yet. But we also dont know the value of the second round pick. But what is true is that the third pick we have received negates some of the cost of the second pick we have paid. Its a net proceeds trade.

 

[Apex36]

This bit is wrong I believe. If Sydney refused to trade him, Murray had two choices accept the contract they offered or not play in 2018.

I’m not buying it. That would constitute restraint of trade and I’m certain the AFL wouldn’t be able to have that upheld in court.

 

[doppleganger]

You're dollars example though on face value may seem logical is actually very flawed.
You see with dollars every 1 unit has the same value. So if you give up 50 of them and get back 30 of them then the real cost is 20 dollars because each unit has the same value.
It is not the same for the draft.
Would you be happy with the club trading away lets say pick 50 for two picks in the 100.
I doubt it.
But you wouldn't give a damn if someone gave you 2 fifty dollar notes for a 100 dollar note right.

Picks have been given value in the form of draft points.

Pick 1 is 3000 points
Pick 2 is 2517 points

Clubs then use these to establish value

2nd round picks range from 948 points to 502 points

If you trade away pick 25 - 756 points, to get back a player and pick 40 - 429 points the end result is actually giving up 327 draft points.

The 327 draft points is the actual value given to the player, which is equivalent of pick 46.

People are fixated on the 2nd rounder, and basically ignore the "change" we get.

As it stands now it could be giving pick 36 and getting back pick 37. But people decide to ignore what we get back.

 

[Darkyprotector]

I agree there are benefits there but my real point is that the really valuable cat B players wont stay on the cat B list because they will be elevated because the club sees them as a likely senior player. So if you have a player on your cat B list who you want to keep but isnt yet AFL ready you would prefer to keep them on the cat B list. If you have a kid who is AFL ready and you tell them there is no spot on the senior list and they wont be AFL available yet even if starring may not be the best player management.

I am not saying Sydney didnt see him as having value just that the value was qualified. It would wise for us supporters to understand that and not expect this kid to be AFL ready yet. Great if he steps straight in but its more likely he is not yet at that level and if he takes time posters should not automatically see that as a fail. Some of the expectations being heaped on the kid seem unrealistic.

Facts are facts, he's the type we needed and is more ready to go than a kid
Ive Come back to this thread and its the same people liking each others posts and generally making a mountain over zip
You've all been informed picks are not a problem, 24 remember
We know the kid showed enough at 18 to come third in at the time the second highest rated senior comp
The same bobby rose played in
Recommended to the club by an ex player who was his coach
At pick whatever who cares,35 45 55 ,magine if be reads this
Please CLOSE THIS THREAD it serves no purpose

 

[Darkyprotector]

Very well explained GC.
The problem is some people still won't get it.

Geez mate don't get sucked in
It's rubbish
He was heavily tagged watched the game on YouTube
He goes very well
Pick 35 45 55 who cares
You're better than this

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Picks have been given value in the form of draft points.

Pick 1 is 3000 points
Pick 2 is 2517 points

Clubs then use these to establish value

2nd round picks range from 948 points to 502 points

If you trade away pick 25 - 756 points, to get back a player and pick 40 - 429 points the end result is actually giving up 327 draft points.

The 327 draft points is the actual value given to the player, which is equivalent of pick 46.

People are fixated on the 2nd rounder, and basically ignore the "change" we get.

As it stands now it could be giving pick 36 and getting back pick 37. But people decide to ignore what we get back.

Yes but some believe the points method of approximating value is witchcraft.