Club Focus GWS Giants 2020 - Hogan, Preuss, Bruhn, Stone, Angwin, Fleeton, Wehr

[Lore]

Data from footywire. To check the draft order (updated weekly) see the thread here.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Sorry but are you one of those people that think club supporters make decisions for the club?

As I've said previously we have done plenty of bidding in our time to make teams pay up. One of few who actually does it.

We didnt bid because we'd rather benefit through trade with GWS and essentially get a free first round pick.
GWS did that because they knew we'd bid. Win-win.

There was no win-win with the Dees not doing so.
Contrary to other posters views, bidding AFTER GWS had their first pick meant virtually nothing.

Yes there was a win-win, Dees got the player they wanted. They didn’t need an inside mid they have a number of them. Their midfield was slow enough without yet another inside mid. Giants were able to trade up ahead of the bids to get an extra first but they gave up a lot in 2020 to do so.

It’s not Melbourne’s job to help other sides it’s their job to do what’s best for Melbourne

 

[DangerSloane]

Yes there was a win-win, Dees got the player they wanted. They didn’t need an inside mid they have a number of them. Their midfield was slow enough without yet another inside mid. Giants were able to trade up ahead of the bids to get an extra first but they gave up a lot in 2020 to do so.

It’s not Melbourne’s job to help other sides it’s their job to do what’s best for Melbourne

The dees didnt win anything.
They got exactly what they would've got regardless of how they played it.

Except they let the Giants get another freebie.
We only let them get it because they gave us a freebie.

So why does anyone ever bid then? I mean we know full well that 99% of the time the team isn't getting the player.
Why not just go back to the old system where teams can use their last pick on any academy/FS players.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The dees didnt win anything.
They got exactly what they would've got regardless of how they played it.

Except they let the Giants get another freebie.
We only let them get it because they gave us a freebie.

So why does anyone ever bid then? I mean we know full well that 99% of the time the team isn't getting the player.
Why not just go back to the old system where teams can use their last pick on any academy/FS players.

GWS would have taken Jackson had they bidded, and then Melbourne lose as they have a player they don't need in Green. Maybe just maybe you are overrating Green just because he's in an academy. Sydney preferred Dylan Stephens to him. It was just an even group from 3-15. How did GWS get a freebie, they gave up not one but TWO first rounders just to get to pick 4.....after giving up two to get to pick 6! That isn't a freebie at all, they are in deficit in 2020.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

That makes no sense.
GWS came to us to offer us a freebie because they knew we would bid otherwise.

They seemingly knew MFC were too gutless to bid.
So both clubs did a deal that suited both of them and screwed 16 other teams. Wins for us.
GWS get two players.
Crows still get the player they wanted and a free 2020 first round pick.
It only worked for GWS because MFC didnt bid.

Now I'm assuming that GWS would've matched which you said wasnt a certainty.
Except I cant find any exceptions to the rule that first round kids get to their academy/FS club every single time.

Wasn't the player who the Crows wanted all along was Stephens?

Also next year's first round pick from GWS could actually push out past pick #20 given where the Giants finish on the ladder, and all the Academy Bids etc

The deal may not be as good for The Crows as you would think.

 

[DangerSloane]

Wasn't the player who the Crows wanted all along was Stephens?

Also next year's first round pick from GWS could actually push out past pick #20 given where the Giants finish on the ladder, and all the Academy Bids etc

The deal may not be as good for The Crows as you would think.

If the crows wanted Stephens there's no way we do that trade in the first place.
Full stop.

They knew nobody was taking McAsey in the first 5 so why not move to 6.

Why wouldn't the deal be good?
We got the player we were always after and a FREE first round pick.
Its literally a free first round pick for nothing. Even if its a late first rounder which is very likely its still free.

 

[DangerSloane]

GWS would have taken Jackson had they bidded, and then Melbourne lose as they have a player they don't need in Green. Maybe just maybe you are overrating Green just because he's in an academy. Sydney preferred Dylan Stephens to him. It was just an even group from 3-15. How did GWS get a freebie, they gave up not one but TWO first rounders just to get to pick 4.....after giving up two to get to pick 6! That isn't a freebie at all, they are in deficit in 2020.

They got a freebie because if we stay at 4 we likely bid on Green and then they have to use all their picks on him.
As it is they make the trade, take the risk of bidding before them out, allowing them to get two top selections instead of 1.

If Adelaide stay at 4 and bid on Green then they dont end up with Ash too.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

They got a freebie because if we stay at 4 we likely bid on Green and then they have to use all their picks on him.
As it is they make the trade, take the risk of bidding before them out, allowing them to get two top selections instead of 1.

If Adelaide stay at 4 and bid on Green then they dont end up with Ash too.

Then blame your club for giving them selection 4. It's not Melbourne's job to bid on a player they don't want. Yet as much as Adelaide rated Green they still didn't bid at 6...you planning to go off at them to? Or is that only for Melbourne or Sydney? Every club would have rankings, it was obvious Jackson was ahead in these rankings for their club. How about we give them the benefit of the doubt and let them draft Jackson ahead of an inside mid. Now if Green was an outside/inside mid Melbourne would be silly not to bid, but lets be real is Green that different to Oliver, etc...

 

[DangerSloane]

Then blame your club for giving them selection 4. It's not Melbourne's job to bid on a player they don't want. Yet as much as Adelaide rated Green they still didn't bid at 6...you planning to go off at them to? Or is that only for Melbourne or Sydney? Every club would have rankings, it was obvious Jackson was ahead in these rankings for their club. How about we give them the benefit of the doubt and let them draft Jackson ahead of an inside mid. Now if Green was an outside/inside mid Melbourne would be silly not to bid, but lets be real is Green that different to Oliver, etc...

Blame us?
We did even better out of the deal than if we'd bid.
That's the point. GWS offered us a freebie to help them.
Realistically if you're another team you should be trying to prevent win-win deals like this one.

Do you really think that GWS wouldn't have matched at 3?
Regardless there was no point in bidding on Green after GWS had taken Ash. Zero.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Blame us?
We did even better out of the deal than if we'd bid.
That's the point. GWS offered us a freebie to help them.

Do you really think that GWS wouldn't have matched at 3?
Regardless there was no point in bidding on Green after GWS had taken Ash. Zero.

Honestly I personally feel GWS would have passed if the bid was before pick 4. They would have backed themselves to get him in a few years. Everything coming out of GWS was that whilst they wanted Green, there is a line and they wanted a live pick as well.

 

[DangerSloane]

Honestly I personally feel GWS would have passed if the bid was before pick 4. They would have backed themselves to get him in a few years. Everything coming out of GWS was that whilst they wanted Green, there is a line and they wanted a live pick as well.

That's not how it works. GWS never get people after a few years (other than their godfather contracts on establishment).

If he went to another club now, he'd never end up at GWS.

GWS played that game so that what happened would happen.
Of course you're going to play coy about where you'll pick him if you have pick 4.

If they came out and said theyd match no matter what well then they'd be in worse shape because MFC or GCFC would be confident to make them waste that pick.

The reason we got our freebie this year is because we are a 'bid threat'.
If you're not a threat then nobody will give you squat.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

That's not how it works. GWS never get people after a few years (other than their godfather contracts on establishment).

If he went to another club now, he'd never end up at GWS.

GWS played that game so that what happened would happen.
Of course you're going to play coy about where you'll pick him if you have pick 4.

If they came out and said theyd match no matter what well then they'd be in worse shape because MFC or GCFC would be confident to make them waste that pick.

Green whilst a gun wasn't a pressing need for GWS, a bloke to replace Shaw is a very pressing need. If Shaw has 12 months left, he's done well. Looked pretty cooked last year. Then you have their lack of a ruck, I mean they traded for Jacobs to be their first ruck. Don't think they would have matched a bid at #3

 

[Harro59]

Then blame your club for giving them selection 4. It's not Melbourne's job to bid on a player they don't want. Yet as much as Adelaide rated Green they still didn't bid at 6...you planning to go off at them to? Or is that only for Melbourne or Sydney? Every club would have rankings, it was obvious Jackson was ahead in these rankings for their club. How about we give them the benefit of the doubt and let them draft Jackson ahead of an inside mid. Now if Green was an outside/inside mid Melbourne would be silly not to bid, but lets be real is Green that different to Oliver, etc...

So just a question here, and I don't mean to come in between your love fest with Dangersloane but why didn't Sydney bid on green at 5? Whilst not forcing them to use pick 4 it still would have taken a bit of capital to make up the points.

Just a question, not trying to fire up a poo storm here.

 

[DangerSloane]

Green whilst a gun wasn't a pressing need for GWS, a bloke to replace Shaw is a very pressing need. If Shaw has 12 months left, he's done well. Looked pretty cooked last year. Then you have their lack of a ruck, I mean they traded for Jacobs to be their first ruck. Don't think they would have matched a bid at #3

If they really wanted Jackson they could've packaged to go up the order, knowing like everyone did that the demons were into him.
It seems like this is an after-the-fact addition.

 

[DangerSloane]

So just a question here, and I don't mean to come in between your love fest with Dangersloane but why didn't Sydney bid on green at 5? Whilst not forcing them to use pick 4 it still would have taken a bit of capital to make up the points.

Just a question, not trying to fire up a poo storm here.

Very good point.
Green would've certainly been an area of need for them.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So just a question here, and I don't mean to come in between your love fest with Dangersloane but why didn't Sydney bid on green at 5? Whilst not forcing them to use pick 4 it still would have taken a bit of capital to make up the points.

Just a question, not trying to fire up a poo storm here.

Although I'd have no issue if we did as he did represent a need, we simply rated Dylan Stephens much higher and that has come out post draft too. It's one thing that Kinnear Beatson does, he rarely tells fibs on these things. Both solve problem issues. We haven't had a genuine wingman like Stephens in goodness knows how long.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

If they really wanted Jackson they could've packaged to go up the order, knowing like everyone did that the demons were into him.
It seems like this is an after-the-fact addition.

Melbourne weren't trading pick 3, GWS tried to do basically the same deal they did with you guys with Melbourne both in trade week and in the pick swap period.

 

[DangerSloane]

Although I'd have no issue if we did as he did represent a need, we simply rated Dylan Stephens much higher and that has come out post draft too. It's one thing that Kinnear Beatson does, he rarely tells fibs on these things. Both solve problem issues. We haven't had a genuine wingman like Stephens in goodness knows how long.

You dont seem to get it though.
GWS werent going to let you steal Green.

So all you had to do was bid, and they match and only end up with 1 top player and you sitll get Stephens.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand?

I have a feeling Sydney and GWS did some kind of under the table agreement to avoid that scenario.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You dont seem to get it though.
GWS werent going to let you steal Green.

So all you had to do was bid, and they match and only end up with 1 top player and you sitll get Stephens.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand?

I have a feeling Sydney and GWS did some kind of under the table agreement to avoid that scenario.

GWS have bidded on our players we were (and only do) bid on players that we feel are right. We did bid on Jackson Mead in this draft. Pick 5 or pick 10, there's no difference. Rather pick the player we want in Stephens.

 

[DangerSloane]

GWS have bidded on our players we were (and only do) bid on players that we feel are right. We did bid on Jackson Mead in this draft. Pick 5 or pick 10, there's no difference. Rather pick the player we want in Stephens.

See this is where I think that some teams are missing out making others pay up.
You never know when it might benefit you further down the draft or in the next years draft.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

See this is where I think that some teams are missing out making others pay up.
You never know when it might benefit you further down the draft or in the next years draft.

You could have bidded at #6 then. I'm happy with what our club does. We are fair at the trade period and we take the players we want at the draft. We will bid on players we want but we won't bid to screw teams, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth and it isn't what the system is for.

 

[DangerSloane]

You could have bidded at #6 then. I'm happy with what our club does. We are fair at the trade period and we take the players we want at the draft. We will bid on players we want but we won't bid to screw teams, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth and it isn't what the system is for.

There was no point bidding after GWS first pick. The only picks where it was worthwhile were 1-4.

It didnt really cost them any more as soon as their first pick was passed.

The point in bidding was to make them pay up. Rather than let last years grand finalists have two of the top 6 talents in the draft.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

There was no point bidding after GWS first pick. The only picks where it was worthwhile were 1-4.

It didnt really cost them any more as soon as their first pick was passed.

So take it up with your club who had a pick inside the top 4 and traded it away. If you so want to bid to screw teams that isn't going to help you or your club going forward. Teams have very long memories and the next year a player wants to come to your club, you'll have the extortion tax on top of a fair trade. It's just not worth it. By all means bid, but keep it reasonable. Anywhere from pick 5-10 was fair. He was bid at 10, that's plenty. What are you complaining about you got a really good kid, so did we in Stephens.

 

[DangerSloane]

So take it up with your club who had a pick inside the top 4 and traded it away. If you so want to bid to screw teams that isn't going to help you or your club going forward. Teams have very long memories and the next year a player wants to come to your club, you'll have the extortion tax on top of a fair trade. It's just not worth it. By all means bid, but keep it reasonable. Anywhere from pick 5-10 was fair. He was bid at 10, that's plenty. What are you complaining about you got a really good kid, so did we in Stephens.

I feel like we're going round in circles here.

We got an extra first round pick to let GWS go ahead. The threat of us bidding (as we have done previously) is why we have that pick.
So previous years bids are already paying dividends.

You and MFC didn't get anything out of GWS or prevent them doing anything when the result for yourselves would have almost certainly been identical.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I feel like we're going round in circles here.

We got an extra first round pick to let GWS go ahead. The threat of us bidding (as we have done previously) is why we have that pick.
So previous years bids are already paying dividends.

You and MFC didn't get anything out of GWS or prevent them doing anything when the result for yourselves would have almost certainly been identical.

We got plenty out of not bidding- we selected our player. We are VERY happy with Dylan Stephens thanks. Didn't actually need Green, well not as much as Stephens. You can get inside mids in most drafts, can trade for one too. Stephens is all class, and that's what we really lacked last season.

You aren't getting the idea that clubs have different priorities- Green isn't the only one rated as the 3rd best player, every club would be different. Melbourne had Jackson, we had Stephens, you had McAsey...

 

[DangerSloane]

We got plenty out of not bidding- we selected our player. We are VERY happy with Dylan Stephens thanks. Didn't actually need Green, well not as much as Stephens. You can get inside mids in most drafts, can trade for one too. Stephens is all class, and that's what we really lacked last season.

You aren't getting the idea that clubs have different priorities- Green isn't the only one rated as the 3rd best player, every club would be different. Melbourne had Jackson, we had Stephens, you had McAsey...

You got the same out of not bidding that you would've got from bidding. Full stop end of story.

I get that clubs have different priorities.
Some are worried about just getting better.
Smart ones are worried about themselves getting better and other teams hopefully not.

They are not competing ideas.

We had McAsey yes. But GWS didnt want us to bid so gave us a hefty first round pick FOR NOTHING.
How does that NOT benefit us more than just picking McAsey at 4?