Melbourne: what do we make of them

[Sweet Jesus]

I don't know who Jackson Nelson is but he doesn't sound like a sure thing compared to May who had already proven himself and was captain of another AFL club. Poor example.

Every established player is a sure thing in the sense that they're a known quantity. Isn't that better than a 50/50 bet in the draft?

Maybe not.

Would you give up your first-rounder for David Swallow? He's captained a club. He's a sure thing. Better than a 50/50 bet in the draft. Right?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Every established player is a sure thing in the sense that they're a known quantity. Isn't that better than a 50/50 bet in the draft?

Maybe not.

Would you give up your first-rounder for David Swallow? He's captained a club. He's a sure thing. Better than a 50/50 bet in the draft. Right?

Swallow isn't the player May is or as important to the defensive structure of our side or a missing piece in our list profile. It's a pretty silly argument you're pursuing here.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Swallow isn't the player May is or as important to the defensive structure of our side or a missing piece in our list profile.

So it's fundamentally a judgement about May's immediate value as a player, which is fine. Melbourne has opted for a short-term pay-off as opposed to the longer term value of a draft pick, which is what I said in the first place.

It's a pretty silly argument you're pursuing here.

You're the one trying to downplay the value of a top 10 draft pick "because it's a 50/50 prospect". You don't have to spin it just because your team is invovled.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Every established player is a sure thing in the sense that they're a known quantity. Isn't that better than a 50/50 bet in the draft?

Maybe not.

Would you give up your first-rounder for David Swallow? He's captained a club. He's a sure thing. Better than a 50/50 bet in the draft. Right?

Sometimes it’s hard to tell if you’re a dumb **** or a troll. Gonna go with benefit of the doubt here and say the latter

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Sometimes it’s hard to tell if you’re a dumb fu** or a troll. Gonna go with benefit of the doubt here and say the latter

Surely the abuse is unnecessary.

I'm merely offering the other poster's rationale back to him to make the point that it doesn't hold water. Downplaying the value of that top 10 pick as a "50/50 bet" is silly.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Surely the abuse is unnecessary.

I'm merely offering the other poster's rationale back to him to make the point that it doesn't hold water. Downplaying the value of that top 10 pick as a "50/50 bet" is silly.

You repeatedly agitate posters across multiple threads by making total straw man arguments that don’t actually offer anything to the discussion, which is irritating because you clearly know what you’re talking about when you don’t do so.

It’s not at all the same rationale here. May is an elite KPD and our entire team defence was falling apart for years because we didn’t have one. It’s not the same as trading for David Sparrow.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You repeatedly agitate posters across multiple threads by making total straw man arguments that don’t actually offer anything to the discussion, which is irritating because you clearly know what you’re talking about when you don’t do so.

I haven't done that. You're over-reacting and being abusive for no reason.

It’s not at all the same rationale here. May is an elite KPD and our entire team defence was falling apart for years because we didn’t have one. It’s not the same as trading for David Sparrow.

Yeah, I agree. Melbourne have made a calculation about May's short-term value while they're theoretically contending and have opted for that over the longer-term value of an early draft pick. That's what I've said from the outset. That's fine. Teams do that all the time. WC did something similar with Tim Kelly. Geelong have done something similar with Jeremy Cameron. Both teams will be left to wonder about the kids they left on the table when they recruited those readymades instead. But that's the calculation they made while theoretically in contention.

My point is that you don't have to downplay the value of the pick Melbourne gave up - or the quality of the kids who would have been available - to understand the calculation.

We're pretending pick 6 is now nothing more than a 50/50 bet? I think it's a bit more valuable than that. And, as discussed, there was some talent available at that pick.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

I haven't done that. You're over-reacting and being abusive for no reason.

Yeah, I agree. Melbourne have made a calculation about May's short-term value while they're theoretically contending and have opted for that over the longer-term value of an early draft pick. That's what I've said from the outset. That's fine. Teams do that all the time. WC did something similar with Tim Kelly. Geelong have done something similar with Jeremy Cameron. Both teams will be left to wonder about the kids they left on the table when they recruited those readymades instead. But that's the calculation they made while theoretically in contention.

My point is that you don't have to downplay the value of the pick Melbourne gave up - or the quality of the kids who would have been available - to understand the calculation.

You’re not even slightly engaging the argument in good faith. None of the examples you’ve made are even vaguely comparable.

You’re right though I was unnecessarily abusive, I apologise

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You’re not even slightly engaging the argument in good faith. None of the examples you’ve made are even vaguely comparable.

The point is that you don't casually trade out a first-rounder for a readymade player, particularly not if it's pick 6. It's a specific calculation, which is fine, but there will still be a question about what was left on the table by trading the pick. Downplaying it by saying "nah it's a 50/50 bet" is just silly. We're talking about pick 6.

You’re right though I was unnecessarily abusive, I apologise

I graciously accept your apology.

 

[This Is Anfield]

Setting themselves up nicely to be in a position to contend, that's all you can do at this early stage.
Best players are fit and in form and that enables the next rung to perform at a high level.
Long season but they looked like a September side on Sat night.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

The point is that you don't casually trade out a first-rounder for a readymade player, particularly not if it's pick 6. It's a specific calculation, which is fine, but there will still be a question about what was left on the table by trading the pick. Downplaying it by saying "nah it's a 50/50 bet" is just silly. We're talking about pick 6.

I graciously accept your apology.

It’s not really downplaying it though, it’s the reality of the deal. There’s a huge amount of intangible benefit in bypassing the risk of the draft for something you know is going to provide huge value to you.

I imagine that when the coaches brought May in this is even beyond the impact they expected it to have - Lever going to another level, and our defence becoming basically a record-breaking level of impenetrable (albeit for six weeks). Clearly Butters is achieving some great things at Port, but you also can’t really measure the positive impact that May’s inclusion/leadership is having on our guys like Petracca, Kossie, Rivers and Jackson. There’s more than one way to skin a cat etc, it’s not really reasonable to take the success that a draftee like Butters or King or Smith or whoever and take it as granted that they would have brought that value to Melbourne. Which is just a more deeply entrenched flaw in the whole logic of how we measure the value of trades etc.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It’s not really downplaying it though, it’s the reality of the deal. There’s a huge amount of intangible benefit in bypassing the risk of the draft for something you know is going to provide huge value to you.

Shrugging off pick 6 as a "50/50 bet" is downplaying. If it's so meh, if it's so little to give up, why don't clubs cough up top 10 picks more readily?

There’s more than one way to skin a cat etc, it’s not really reasonable to take the success that a draftee like Butters or King or Smith or whoever and take it as granted that they would have brought that value to Melbourne. Which is just a more deeply entrenched flaw in the whole logic of how we measure the value of trades etc.

It is entirely reasonable to look at what Melbourne forewent by trading pick 6 for May. That is the heart of the calculation: you get May but what do you forego?

The answer: you forego the chance to draft King, Smith or Butters. There are no guarantees but you forego that chance.

If North Melbourne went and traded pick 1 this year in a deal for some readymades, you don't reckon that deal would be judged down the line based primarily on whether the kid taken at 1 turns out to be a star? Of course it would. People would be making that comparison until the end of that kid's career.

 

[Stabby McGee]

Shrugging off pick 6 as a "50/50 bet" is downplaying. If it's so meh, if it's so little to give up, why don't clubs cough up top 10 picks more readily?

It is entirely reasonable to look at what Melbourne forewent by trading pick 6 for May. That is the heart of the calculation: you get May but what do you forego?

It’s a wee bit less than 50/50

Six and out: The history of footy's 'cursed' draft pick

Pick No.6 has seen more than its share of draft flops - but things are finally looking up

www.afl.com.au

But other than you who gives a ****? May works and works well right now. Whatever we paid was worth it

 

[Blackas87]

It is entirely reasonable to look at what Melbourne forewent by trading pick 6 for May. That is the heart of the calculation: you get May but what do you forego?

The thing is Melbourne forego’d the contracted Hogan. If Hogan wanted to go to the Gold Coast a swap of Hogan for May would of been the base of the trade if GC wanted him, not a top 10 pick that Melbourne didn’t have. It was just easier to get Hogan back to WA than to Queensland.

The pick from a Melbourne perspective was just a middle piece that they never wanted and never had intentions of using.

Yes Melbourne stuck to the Paul Roos rebuild plan to contend from 2018 to the near future instead of selling off its experienced players to bring in young talent for a look further into the future.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

But other than you who gives a fu**? May works and works well right now. Whatever we paid was worth it

I guess that's one way of assessing the balance of a trade.

 

[Stabby McGee]

I guess that's one way of assessing the balance of a trade.

It’s simple economics- everything is worth what a person is willing to pay... nothing more and nothing less. May is worth what we were willing to pay.
If you want to troll someone ask a Freo fan why they took Hogan rather than spend #6 on a Butters or whoever

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The thing is Melbourne forego’d the contracted Hogan. If Hogan wanted to go to the Gold Coast a swap of Hogan for May would of been the base of the trade if GC wanted him, not a top 10 pick that Melbourne didn’t have. It was just easier to get Hogan back to WA than to Queensland.

The pick from a Melbourne perspective was just a middle piece that they never wanted and never had intentions of using.

Yes Melbourne stuck to the Paul Roos rebuild plan to contend from 2018 to the near future instead of selling off its experienced players to bring in young talent for a look further into the future.

They had pick 6. They traded it.

Just say, yeah we gave up the chance to draft some promising kids but Melbourne felt the time to contend was nigh so we pulled the trigger because sometimes that's what's required. That's fine. Clubs make that decision all the time.

I don't understand the impulse to explain it away. Nah pick 6 is only a 50/50 bet. Nah it was a straight swap for Hogan. Nah we never really wanted pick 6 anyway.

Just own it.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Shrugging off pick 6 as a "50/50 bet" is downplaying. If it's so meh, if it's so little to give up, why don't clubs cough up top 10 picks more readily?

It is entirely reasonable to look at what Melbourne forewent by trading pick 6 for May. That is the heart of the calculation: you get May but what do you forego?

If North Melbourne went and traded pick 1 this year in a deal for some readymades, you don't reckon that deal would be judged down the line based primarily on whether the kid taken at 1 turns out to be a star?

May isn’t really just a ready made player though, it’s a bit more complicated than that. We wouldn’t have done the deal if not for the particular circumstance of coming off a year where we made a prelim in spite of having one of the leakiest defences in the comp, and said leaky defence possibly cost us multiple H&A wins which could have seen us finish the season in a better spot on the ladder.

Re: North, it’s pretty similar to the Dom Tyson deal. Everyone craps on about how well Josh Kelly turned out, but if we hadn’t done that deal we could very well have won zero games in 2014 given Tyson’s impact that year, and god knows what would have happened if that was the case. Was also close to best on ground in some of our most formative wins between 2014-17, which were all steps towards developing some kind of winning culture.

If North trade pick 1 and the player(s) they get in return puts them back on track in the same way, I don’t think it really matters what pick 1 does at another club if that was their intention for doing the trade (although we were in a much, much worse position than North are now and needed wins ASAP for cultural reasons so it’s different). May was brought in to stabilise and improve our defence, and he’s done so. If we thought we could draft a player at pick 6 who would do the same we might have tried that, but this was the greatest issue we had to fix so we prioritised it and pursued the most direct path available. That’s where the value of the trade lies.

I’m not saying that May’s value shouldn’t be judged against what Butters or King or Smith do. I’m just saying that there’s a lot more to it than comparing that deal to trading a first rounder for any random experienced player. There was a specific need being addressed here. We rated May as the best and probably only KPD available who was going to do for us what we needed, so in that context we were happy to give up the pick given the uncertainty of the draft.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It’s simple economics- everything is worth what a person is willing to pay... nothing more and nothing less. May is worth what we were willing to pay.

That's fine, Stabby. The question is what you forewent by trading that pick 6.

If you want to troll someone ask a Freo fan why they took Hogan rather than spend #6 on a Butters or whoever

Has that question not been asked? I think Fremantle have been tortured plenty over that decision.

 

[Blackas87]

They had pick 6. They traded it.

Just say, yeah we gave up the chance to draft some promising kids but Melbourne felt the time to contend was nigh so we pulled the trigger because sometimes that's what's required. That's fine. Clubs make that decision all the time.

I don't understand the impulse to explain it away. Nah pick 6 is only a 50/50 bet. Nah it was a straight swap for Hogan. Nah we never really wanted pick 6 anyway.

Just own it.

They only got pick 6 to bring in May, they had it for 20 minutes.

Melbourne would not of traded the contracted Hogan out if they could not get May

Melbourne traded Hogan for May.

I’ve also not said pick 6 was 50/50 bet, not sure why you’re referencing this to me. Melbourne though never had intentions to use it in the draft. What’s to own?

 

[Stabby McGee]

That's fine, Stabby. The question is what you forewent by trading that pick 6.

Nothing. We paid our money and got what we wanted. You can’t say X draftee would be as good or bad in our system than they’d be in another.
The answer is we forwent picking a maybe for 10+ years over (what we hoped) was a certainty for 5.
Yes 6 might have been the next Dusty or it might have been the next Scully. You are arguing intangibles.
In any event I doubt you’ll find any sane Melbourne supporter that thinks ‘oh noes! We should have taken that pick to the table’. Maybe ten years from now but ten years is a loooooong time.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

May isn’t really just a ready made player though, it’s a bit more complicated than that. We wouldn’t have done the deal if not for the particular circumstance of coming off a year where we made a prelim in spite of having one of the leakiest defences in the comp, and said leaky defence possibly cost us multiple H&A wins which could have seen us finish the season in a better spot on the ladder.

I'm not sure what point this makes. He was a readymade player who filled an obvious need and Melbourne made the calculation that they were close enough that it was worth trading pick 6 to get him. That doesn't invalidate any and all questions about whether it was worth it in the long run or the kids you could have drafted.

I don't understand the impulse among you guys to try to explain it away.

You decided you were close enough to contention to be able to challenge and identified a required player. You then paid your fair whack to get him. This happens all the time. I don't understand why you have to build these rationalisations for why it's invalid to look at May's output and compare it to the kids you left on the table. That comparison is inevitable.

I can assure you that I've done the same with WC. I look at the first-rounders we traded for Sharrod Wellingham and Jack Redden and wonder about the kids we left on the table as a result. For example, the pick WC traded for Wellingham was used to select Brodie Grundy. I console myself by saying we probably wouldn't have picked Grundy with that selection, though. And he was the only player taken within the next 10 selections that made it. We probably would have taken Marco Paparone or someone equally underwhelming. So I can accept that the pick we traded didn't hurt us too much. It didn't cost us too much in terms of drafting opportunities. When I look at the pick 6 you gave up for May, it's clear you left a bit more talent on the table.

Re: North, it’s pretty similar to the Dom Tyson deal. Everyone craps on about how well Josh Kelly turned out, but if we hadn’t done that deal we could very well have won zero games in 2014 given Tyson’s impact that year, and god knows what would have happened if that was the case. Was also close to best on ground in some of our most formative wins between 2014-17, which were all steps towards developing some kind of winning culture.

I'm not sure what this Dom Tyson tangent demonstrates?

If North trade pick 1 and the player(s) they get in return puts them back on track in the same way, I don’t think it really matters what pick 1 does at another club if that was their intention for doing the trade (although we were in a much, much worse position than North are now and needed wins ASAP for cultural reasons so it’s different). May was brought in to stabilise and improve our defence, and he’s done so. If we thought we could draft a player at pick 6 who would do the same we might have tried that, but this was the greatest issue we had to fix so we prioritised it and pursued the most direct path available. That’s where the value of the trade lies.

Are you kidding me? Any club that trades away pick 1 - or any early pick - will be forever judged against the outcome of that decision. That comparison will be monitored for years.

Look at how Fremantle were hammered for giving up pick 1 that ended up being Luke Hodge. That decision has forever been judged against the player Hodge became. Sure, Fremantle needed KPPs in Croad and McPharlin. But the pick became Hodge. That comparison is inevitable. And that's before you get to the fact Fremantle also traded them pick 36, which became Sam Mitchell. We accept more readily the crapshoot once it gets to that stage of the draft.

Again, I don't know why you're so determined to build this alternative rationalisation for why such a comparison should never be entertained with regard to Melbourne giving up pick 6 for May.

I’m not saying that May’s value shouldn’t be judged against what Butters or King or Smith do. I’m just saying that there’s a lot more to it than comparing that deal to trading a first rounder for any random experienced player. There was a specific need being addressed here. We rated May as the best and probably only KPD available who was going to do for us what we needed, so in that context we were happy to give up the pick given the uncertainty of the draft.

Really? Then I'm confused.

I think I've addressed the rest of your post already. And while it may all be true, it's not an argument for abandoning the inevitable comparison.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

They only got pick 6 to bring in May, they had it for 20 minutes.

Melbourne would not of traded the contracted Hogan out if they could not get May

Melbourne traded Hogan for May.

Such a weird rationalisation. You had pick 6 and you traded it. Why are you telling yourself a story where this didn't happen?

I’ve also not said pick 6 was 50/50 bet, not sure why you’re referencing this to me. Melbourne though never had intentions to use it in the draft.

Another poster said pick 6 was a 50/50 bet. It's one of the strange rationalisations about this trade, which I'm referencing collectively and not to you specifically.

What’s to own?

The calculation to trade an early pick for a readymade player because Melbourne felt they were close enough to pull the trigger. And come what may regarding the kids you left on the table. Que sera, sera.

Instead you tie yourself into a pretzel by saying it was a straight swap for Hogan. It wasn't.

You traded pick 6. It's fine. Clubs make those decisions all the time. But I don't understand why you insist that didn't happen.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Nothing. We paid our money and got what we wanted. You can’t say X draftee would be as good or bad in our system than they’d be in another.
The answer is we forwent picking a maybe for 10+ years over (what we hoped) was a certainty for 5.
Yes 6 might have been the next Dusty or it might have been the next Scully. You are arguing intangibles.
In any event I doubt you’ll find any sane Melbourne supporter that thinks ‘oh noes! We should have taken that pick to the table’. Maybe ten years from now but ten years is a loooooong time.

You forewent the opportunity to draft King, Smith or Butters.

You might say that's fair enough, it was worth it. But to say you didn't forego anything is simply not true.

 

[Headless]

Any chance we can take this to the draft board?