Josh Fraser

[Leg_Spinning_Sensation]

Who was 2nd in that draft?
1st. Fraser
2nd. ???
3rd. Pavlich

1. Josh Fraser
2. Paul Haselby
3. Aaron Fiora
4. Matt PAvlich
5. Leigh Brown
6. DAmien Cupido (NP)
7. Danny Roach (NP)
8. Joel Corey
9. CAdyn Beetham (NP)
10. Luke McPharlin

(NP) = Not playing

If you look there, there are 5 or more spuds depending on your criteria of spuds and we got the 2nd best player in the draft. I'm very happy with Josh, he is argubly our 1st or 2nd most valuble player.

If we had of stuck with the 3rd pick we would have had either Pavlich OR Fiora, Brown or Cupido or of course Roach. That's a 20% chance at a good player and the other 80 to getting a player who just doesn't make the cut. We could hve done better no doubt but we got one of the players of that draft and then a spud but that's the draft, it is a fascinating creation.

 

[Coin_Toss]

Future captain. You heard it here first - If you haven't, just say you did.

 

[Lonie_from_50]

Future captain. You heard it here first - If you haven't, just say you did.

I heard it around October of 1999

 

[footynuts99]

1. Josh Fraser
2. Paul Haselby
3. Aaron Fiora
4. Matt PAvlich
5. Leigh Brown
6. DAmien Cupido (NP)
7. Danny Roach (NP)
8. Joel Corey
9. CAdyn Beetham (NP)
10. Luke McPharlin

(NP) = Not playing

If you look there, there are 5 or more spuds depending on your criteria of spuds and we got the 2nd best player in the draft. I'm very happy with Josh, he is argubly our 1st or 2nd most valuble player.

If we had of stuck with the 3rd pick we would have had either Pavlich OR Fiora, Brown or Cupido or of course Roach. That's a 20% chance at a good player and the other 80 to getting a player who just doesn't make the cut. We could hve done better no doubt but we got one of the players of that draft and then a spud but that's the draft, it is a fascinating creation.

Good research Leg_Spinning_Sensation. I've never even heard of number 9 in the draft. Cadyn Beetham

 

[bucksisbest]

He has had an OK season.

 

[G.O.B]

I cant find any source atm but I quite vividly remember Freo saying post draft that if Collingwood had kept their #3 pick they would've taken Pavlich at #2 leaving Haselby for their next pick.
The reasoning was that Collingwood were desperate for talls at that stage whilst Richmond were looking at Mids.
Damn near every club would've taken Josh at #1 so the only way we could've got Pav was to take him at #1 which would've been quite a shock that year.
If anyone can find a source or heard this at the time please eleborate.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

I cant find any source atm but I quite vividly remember Freo saying post draft that if Collingwood had kept their #3 pick they would've taken Pavlich at #2 leaving Haselby for their next pick.
The reasoning was that Collingwood were desperate for talls at that stage whilst Richmond were looking at Mids.
Damn near every club would've taken Josh at #1 so the only way we could've got Pav was to take him at #1 which would've been quite a shock that year.
If anyone can find a source or heard this at the time please eleborate.

I think you're right about that.

Another thing people forget to mention when talking about Pavlich and passing up the chance to get him is that Pavlich was a top age draftee.

He was eligible for the draft in 1998, and NOBODY looked at him. 84 picks went by, and nobody took a flyer on Pavlich. It's actually only 16 picks, because clubs were only allowed to draft one 17 year old per draft back in those days, but if you want to use 20/20 hindsight, then surely one of them could have taken Pavlich.

 

[MarkT]

I cant find any source atm but I quite vividly remember Freo saying post draft that if Collingwood had kept their #3 pick they would've taken Pavlich at #2 leaving Haselby for their next pick.
The reasoning was that Collingwood were desperate for talls at that stage whilst Richmond were looking at Mids.

It was all speculation and as far as I know not based on actual comment from Freo. I always thought Freo wanted Haselby because he was a local and in any event we could have convinced the world that having taken a tall with 1 we’d be after a mid with 3. Worst case scenario is we could have had Haselby who isn't a bad player anyway. The pre draft talk was all about Fraser at 1 and then Haselby/ Pavlich. Had we actually kept Monkhurst for a final year the whole outlook of the draft needs would have been different and Fraser wouldn’t have been rucked for 21 games without support at 18. The whole outlook and process was terrible.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Next time a StKilda troll has a go at us about Danny Roach I'll rememeber to ask them how Cayden Beetham's going.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Worst case scenario is we could have had Haselby who isn't a bad player anyway.

Ordinary, dime a dozen plodder, the types of which we've had too many of for too long. He'd have added little to our team.

 

[G.O.B]

Ordinary, dime a dozen plodder, the types of which we've had too many of for too long. He'd have added little to our team.

I rate him a little higher than that but I do agree he wouldn't have added a great deal to the team.

 

[MarkT]

Haselby is a decent midfielder and he plays for Freo so who knows how much better he could be. He might have prevented us taking Woewodin and/or Morrison. The point is we traded pick 3 for a dud and pick 7. That dud was somewhat of a known quantity and the relevant people got their talent assessment horribly wrong and have done likewise since. We should have the best list in the comp. We have had great draft opportunities, a last and two second lasts to use as PSD pick / trade pressure and w3e started with some good top end players from the 90’s. Aside from that we put Fraser to the sword at 18 and we still have him rucking and it still isn't working more often than it is.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The 3 for 7 was never the problem. It got us McKee, who for all his weaknesses, did an admirable job when we were at an all time low for rucks. He may have turned out to be a better player if we had not given him Legionairres Disease!! It was who we chose with 7. If we were that hopeless picking Roach at 7, who's to say we would not have chosen him at 3?

If we'd drafted Luke McPharlin for example instead of Roach we'd probably not be having this discussion. We'd either have McPharlin filling a much needed role at the club or we'd have traded him for Trent Croad by now. Either way we'd be happy.

Our problems have been generally drafting, not trading problems.

 

[MarkT]

In the ordinary course you will have a much better chance at a gun with 3 than with 6. It shouldn't be contemplated unless you are getting a gun. McKee sort of came good for 2002 if you can call it that but his health problems didn't make him a poor quality ruckman that couldn't jump and who's only around the ground value was to drop back. Even at his 2002 peak he was at best a break even ruckman used to nullify. His high water mark was doing exactly that in the QF v primus but that is an ordinary CV.

 

[Ekulman]

What ever happened to steve mckee?
does he even play football anymore

 

[Palmer Stoat]

To be fair to Roach, both his hip and his groins were stuffed by the time he retired at the grand old age of 20. Who knows what he could have been had his body held up. It's exactly this kind of thing that made clubs so gunshy about drafting Beau Muston last year. He's a kid who many rated in the top handful on footballing ability alone, but slid to 20-something in the draft because clubs where scared off by his knee injury. Danny Roach is Collingwood's Luke Molan. Sometimes it happens. The real question is how much, if any, of Roach's injury problems did he already have when we drafted him? The answer to that question would determine just how competent and professional the Collingwood recruiting department were in drafting him.

 

[MarkT]

Roach isn’t all that relevant. When we did the deal we didn’t know who was going to be available at 7. What we swapped was a pick we knew for certain would net at best Pavlich and at worst Haselby, both of whom were very highly rated, for McKee who we should have known was not good enough since it was pretty obvious from the outset and pick 7 which we knew was not going to net a player of top 3 class by definition. Had we selected a McPharlin we would have been very lucky but the draft isn’t about being very lucky it is about playing the best odds and accumulating the best top end talent you can when you have the opportunity because you are pre cycled to get only infrequent opportunities unless you abnormally crap on field and poorly run off it.

As for how good Haselby is, he is better at this point than anyone we have drafted since 1999 except for Fraser (1) and Didak (3). Maybe Thomas (2) will surpass him but his first year hasn't been as good and I like Pendlebury (5) but he has a way to go. Travis and Heath don't count because they were outside the normal draft order. Rusling might be very good but he has been dissapointing this year.

 

[Leg_Spinning_Sensation]

In hindsight everything is easy, in hindsight................

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Had we selected a McPharlin we would have been very lucky

How do you come to the conclusion that picking up mcPharlin would have been lucky? As has been stated, Pavlich was available for draft in the prior year and nobody picked him up. Even the year he was drafted, he was Freo's second choice. Isnt that luck? Would it have been luck if we drafted Pavlich fourth round in the year before?

How can you possibly differentiate between luck and smart trading? If they succeed, they succeed. If they dont they dont, they are failures (unless you can trade them for a decent price and recover your losses).

 

[footynuts99]

[uote=Ekulman]What ever happened to steve mckee?
does he even play football anymore[/quote]

He was delisted by the Pies at the end of 2003 i think. Now he's playing for his home town Myrtleford on the Ovens & Murray footy league.