List Mgmt. Nick Daicos

[Scodog10]

Not saying it's likely. I was replying to Sco's opinion that the club made the right call in moving on the 2021 1st unless we finish in last place. My view would be I would rather have our 2021 to trade at the end of the season if we finish in the bottom section of the ladder.

Not to prolong the discussion, but I feel it’s important to clarify that those comments were made in the context that if we finish last we’ve got much bigger problems than that trade. Retention, player buy in and a clean out of the FD would all be broad discussion points (I’m sure there would be others). For mine they’re much bigger issues with more serious ramifications than quibbling over the timing of trading a pick.

 

[Jen2310]

Not to prolong the discussion, but I feel it’s important to clarify that those comments were made in the context that if we finish last we’ve got much bigger problems than that trade. Retention, player buy in and a clean out of the FD would all be broad discussion points (I’m sure there would be others). For mine they’re much bigger issues with more serious ramifications than quibbling over the timing of trading a pick.

This is a very valid point. Trading the pick would be the least of our worries if we're looking at a bottom 4.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

This is a very valid point. Trading the pick would be the least of our worries if we're looking at a bottom 4.

The argument there might still be “thank god we traded into the 2020 draft so that we now have a one year headstart on a rebuild”

 

[sr36]

Still very risky even if you manage to get that trade done during the trade period. Could end up stuck with both those picks and they still end up being absorbed matching a Daicos bid.

The risk was that we may have only been able to trade it for something like 22 and 28...

 

[Kawenda]

No GC is saying take the unknown out of it and wait and see what you hold at draft time to make a proper informed decision.

Not only dont they know what pick they traded, they also done it for 2 picks in low 30s (after down trading) in a draft where players had no exposed form in their last u18 year.

(Admittedly that can work both ways players could of move up the order or down).

That's just plain false though.......

We got pick 24 & 27. We then used these to trade for picks for next year and got 2 low 30's picks in return.

So in essence for this year's first we got Poulter, McMahon & points for Daicos and Dib.

Considering we get 2 years worth of training into Poulter and McMahon before we would even use anything we got from trading the pick this year it's a pretty reasonable outcome no matter where the pick sits.

 

[sr36]

That's just plain false though.......

We got pick 24 & 27. We then used these to trade for picks for next year and got 2 low 30's picks in return.

So in essence for this year's first we got Poulter, McMahon & points for Daicos and Dib.

Considering we get 2 years worth of training into Poulter and McMahon before we would even use anything we got from trading the pick this year it's a pretty reasonable outcome no matter where the pick sits.

GWS would have been bloody delighted with the trade - a pick likely to be 6-12 for pick 24 and 27. Any club would that in a heartbeat. I think we've got suckered into the whole points thing and seem to think the points valuations are accurate for each pick - when every other club is treating the higher picks as relatively much more valuable than the points they have attached.

And the extra year of development? We used our picks on blokes who missed their final year of junior develpment. If we valued an extra year of development so highly, we wouldn't have gone hard on this draft. If an extra year of development was so significant, you wouldn't use the draft at all - you'd just trade for blokes with an extra year of development or two. The top end of the draft is about trying to get long term high quality footballers into the club - an extra year of development is such short sighted thinking - not relevant over the course of a career - which is what you draft for.

 

[loki04]

That's just plain false though.......

We got pick 24 & 27. We then used these to trade for picks for next year and got 2 low 30's picks in return.

So in essence for this year's first we got Poulter, McMahon & points for Daicos and Dib.

Considering we get 2 years worth of training into Poulter and McMahon before we would even use anything we got from trading the pick this year it's a pretty reasonable outcome no matter where the pick sits.

You basically said mines "false" and then stated the exact same thing as me, bar that I left out the future 3rd rounder for daicos points we received when down trading pick 24.

 

[loki04]

The argument there might still be “thank god we traded into the 2020 draft so that we now have a one year headstart on a rebuild”

Predicated that they got the talent ID spot on. And yes I am positive and hopeful of this crop.

 

[loki04]

This is a very valid point. Trading the pick would be the least of our worries if we're looking at a bottom 4.

You need high end talent on the list no matter how good the off field people are.

You can't shine shit, at best a great coach can only sprinkle glitter on it.

 

[jonmacTrag]

GWS would have been bloody delighted with the trade - a pick likely to be 6-12 for pick 24 and 27. Any club would that in a heartbeat. I think we've got suckered into the whole points thing and seem to think the points valuations are accurate for each pick - when every other club is treating the higher picks as relatively much more valuable than the points they have attached.

And the extra year of development? We used our picks on blokes who missed their final year of junior develpment. If we valued an extra year of development so highly, we wouldn't have gone hard on this draft. If an extra year of development was so significant, you wouldn't use the draft at all - you'd just trade for blokes with an extra year of development or two. The top end of the draft is about trying to get long term high quality footballers into the club - an extra year of development is such short sighted thinking - not relevant over the course of a career - which is what you draft for.

The needs of a list and the market dynamics seldom dovetail so neatly, I don't give a fck what GWS think or don't think - if the trade ends up benefiting us in the long term it's a win - and no amount of sophistry can change that.

 

[loki04]

That was also the thinking on draft night in 2020, but market forces didn’t nab us such a great haul.

Because the pick is unknown, the players development and who they are also unknown, the clubs 2021 fortunes are another unknown.
ie are they building rebuilding pushing for finals or flag etc. All of that can change over 12 months.

When your pick is locked in at say pick 5 they know exactly what they are getting, on top of that, they have formulated what players are likely available at that pick and how it fits into their system and plans moving fwd.


Tldr: You aren't going to have a bidding war over an unknown pick especially when said team is regarded as a finals bound side.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Predicated that they got the talent ID spot on. And yes I am positive and hopeful of this crop.

The identical argument applies if we had not traded the pick to get two picks back. You still have to get the pick right. Although doing what we did doubled our chances because two players is twice as many as one.

 

[loki04]

The identical argument applies if we had not traded the pick to get two picks back. You still have to get the pick right. Although doing what we did doubled our chances.

But in a bracket where the chances are halved.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

But in a bracket where the chances are halved.

I contest your assessment that the success rate halves between the first and second round. Even so.... two players are double one so it balanced out! That’s a fair trade, especially with some fourth round points coming back to us.

I’m sure somewhere there’s a mathematical analysis that tells us the exact comparative hit miss ratios as you go lower down the draft order. Where’s Stan the Statistician when you need him?

 

[Kawenda]

GWS would have been bloody delighted with the trade - a pick likely to be 6-12 for pick 24 and 27. Any club would that in a heartbeat. I think we've got suckered into the whole points thing and seem to think the points valuations are accurate for each pick - when every other club is treating the higher picks as relatively much more valuable than the points they have attached.

And the extra year of development? We used our picks on blokes who missed their final year of junior develpment. If we valued an extra year of development so highly, we wouldn't have gone hard on this draft. If an extra year of development was so significant, you wouldn't use the draft at all - you'd just trade for blokes with an extra year of development or two. The top end of the draft is about trying to get long term high quality footballers into the club - an extra year of development is such short sighted thinking - not relevant over the course of a career - which is what you draft for.

Its 2 years development for starters (which is significantly different) and personally I would back the recruiting staff to pick a couple of diamonds in a year where the exposed for is non-existent. Remember they are into these players for years before they come to draft age.

The extra development is extremely relevant when you look at the list demographic though. We have the older stars nearing retirement pendles, sidey etc etc. They younger group of highly skilled players is what's left of the group we loaded up on around that 2012-2014 period. I would suggest the guys we picked up last year would be early to mid 20's and coming into/in their prime while we have the 2012-2014 group as the veteran leaders.

If we lost 2 years development in this case then we have these kids still developing while we should be in the slot trying to have a tilt at winning another flag.

 

[sr36]

Its 2 years development for starters (which is significantly different) and personally I would back the recruiting staff to pick a couple of diamonds in a year where the exposed for is non-existent. Remember they are into these players for years before they come to draft age.

The extra development is extremely relevant when you look at the list demographic though. We have the older stars nearing retirement pendles, sidey etc etc. They younger group of highly skilled players is what's left of the group we loaded up on around that 2012-2014 period. I would suggest the guys we picked up last year would be early to mid 20's and coming into/in their prime while we have the 2012-2014 group as the veteran leaders.

If we lost 2 years development in this case then we have these kids still developing while we should be in the slot trying to have a tilt at winning another flag.

i just think the develpment angle isn't how to look at it with draftees. We used the picks on blokes who will need a heap of development. If you traded it on to 2022, we'd probably get a bloke as ready to go then as our two will be and if we traded it for a player next year, we definitely would have. But either way, you don't factor in how ready they are going to be in the next two years when it comes to selecting 18 year olds - you go for the bloke who you think will have the best career.

 

[FAIRANDBALANCED]

So...how about that Nick Daicos, hey?

 

[Jen2310]

Nick Daicos (Vic Metro/Oakleigh Chargers)

DOB: 3/1/2003 H: 183cm W: 72kg

Tarkyn Lockyer says: Versatile player who can mix between mid/forward with excellent kicking on both sides of his body. Father/Son prospect with Collingwood, being the son of premiership player Peter and bother of current Magpie Josh.

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au

 

[jackcass]

The risk was that we may have only been able to trade it for something like 22 and 28...

Or not at all.

 

[jonmacTrag]

So...how about that Nick Daicos, hey?

Nick who??
I thought this thread was about providing a vehicle for those with an axe to grind about this off season's trading.

 

[Scodog10]

i just think the develpment angle isn't how to look at it with draftees. We used the picks on blokes who will need a heap of development. If you traded it on to 2022, we'd probably get a bloke as ready to go then as our two will be and if we traded it for a player next year, we definitely would have. But either way, you don't factor in how ready they are going to be in the next two years when it comes to selecting 18 year olds - you go for the bloke who you think will have the best career.

Are you comparing development time in the AFL system once these kids are full time professional athletes v the development from a lost year of underage footy? Both are important in a sense, but 12 months in the AFL system is more than a lifetime of underage footy...

 

[sr36]

Are you comparing development time in the AFL system once these kids are full time professional athletes v the development from a lost year of underage footy? Both are important in a sense, but 12 months in the AFL system is more than a lifetime of underage footy...

I just think an extra year of development is not something to factor in with draftees, as it isn't really an extra year - it's just an earlier year. You're seeing it as an advantage that they're going to be ready sooner, which I suppose it is, but if you want them ready to go earlier - you don't pick blokes as skinny as Poulter and McMahon - you trade someone in or you draft more mature bodies - but that's not the way to go with early picks - you pick the bloke you think is going to have the best career - regardless of how quickly they are likely to develop - so if you have the choice between a top liner in a future draft - you take that over two middling selections who will get to the club in an earlier year. That's the way I see it anyway.

 

[jackcass]

I just think an extra year of development is not something to factor in with draftees, as it isn't really an extra year - it's just an earlier year. You're seeing it as an advantage that they're going to be ready sooner, which I suppose it is, but if you want them ready to go earlier - you don't pick blokes as skinny as Poulter and McMahon - you trade someone in or you draft more mature bodies - but that's not the way to go with early picks - you pick the bloke you think is going to have the best career - regardless of how quickly they are likely to develop - so if you have the choice between a top liner in a future draft - you take that over two middling selections who will get to the club in an earlier year. That's the way I see it anyway.

Yeah but 2020 to 2022 is 2 years development. No guarantees on who you get in 2022. He may well be another who takes years to develop. No guarantees on anyone we took in 2020 either but we’ve got those 2 years to find out.

 

[sr36]

Yeah but 2020 to 2022 is 2 years development. No guarantees on who you get in 2022. He may well be another who takes years to develop. No guarantees on anyone we took in 2020 either but we’ve got those 2 years to find out.

If you trade down to get them earlier, I'm pretty confident you'll lose in the long run.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

You need high end talent on the list no matter how good the off field people are.

You can't shine sh*t, at best a great coach can only sprinkle glitter on it.

Bigfooty Fact check: False. Mythbusters proved that turds can indeed be polished to a fine shiny sheen. As did Carrie Bickmore's career.