List Mgmt. Nick Daicos

[Scodog10]

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.

That didn’t answer my question.

Any guy you and others are talking about v Poulter and McMahon is automatically behind purely because they aren’t getting the same exposure. It’s a fact whether you agree or not. What can be disputed is whether it’s enough to make up a PERCEIVED* talent gap? IDK and that’s where the discussion should fall.

All drafts from 2020-22 are going to be COVID drafts because recruiters start tracking 3 years out so anyone we take across those drafts is going to be behind “normal development” providing more value in developing them sooner. I also need to point out that if you’re talking about guys needing time in the system the ideal candidates as you pointed out would be McMahon and Poulter.

I want to stress that no matter my take I don’t believe there’s a right or wrong in the discussion of whether trading our 2021 1st round as right. This discussion for me is now more about establishing the benefits of the time value of money concept in regards to drafting.

*Ultimately what it boils down to is our perceptions on the outside. I think many would take the view that because they were drafted around 30 that’s where they sit in that drafts pecking order. Personally I don’t think it’s a stretch to ponder whether we rated Poulter and McMahon 10-15. It was a year out of the box so rankings would have been wildly different across the league. In a normal draft cycle your views would stack up a lot better, but there’s too much unknown around COVID and the impacts on the draft. I’m pretty confident we’ll look back in 2030 and go jeez there was gold late in that draft.

 

[sr36]

That didn’t answer my question.

Any guy you and others are talking about v Poulter and McMahon is automatically behind purely because they aren’t getting the same exposure. It’s a fact whether you agree or not. What can be disputed is whether it’s enough to make up a PERCEIVED* talent gap? IDK and that’s where the discussion should fall.

All drafts from 2020-22 are going to be COVID drafts because recruiters start tracking 3 years out so anyone we take across those drafts is going to be behind “normal development” providing more value in developing them sooner. I also need to point out that if you’re talking about guys needing time in the system the ideal candidates as you pointed out would be McMahon and Poulter.

I want to stress that no matter my take I don’t believe there’s a right or wrong in the discussion of whether trading our 2021 1st round as right. This discussion for me is now more about establishing the benefits of the time value of money concept in regards to drafting.

*Ultimately what it boils down to is our perceptions on the outside. I think many would take the view that because they were drafted around 30 that’s where they sit in that drafts pecking order. Personally I don’t think it’s a stretch to ponder whether we rated Poulter and McMahon 10-15. It was a year out of the box so rankings would have been wildly different across the league. In a normal draft cycle your views would stack up a lot better, but there’s too much unknown around COVID and the impacts on the draft. I’m pretty confident we’ll look back in 2030 and go jeez there was gold late in that draft.

When looking at the trade. It may very well be that clubs would be better off trading a future pick 6-12 or so for two current picks in the 20s, but the thing is that if you do that, youre not getting market value, because clubs pay a premium to trade up. So ultimately that's my biggest criticism of the trade.

I do think you're over rating getting them a year earlier. These aren't blue chip stocks that you can be confident will definitely rise over time and thus the benefit of compound interest kicks in. They're specky stocks. They will do nothing for a couple of years and then will either boom or bust over the next couple. Extra time in our portfolio is worthless for the majority who bust.

The other factor is that we spoke about not being able to afford getting players across who wanted to come due to salary cap. If this was indeed part of our cap clearing strategy, why would you give up our most valuable trade chip for a below market price.

 

[Apex36]

When looking at the trade. It may very well be that clubs would be better off trading a future pick 6-12 or so for two current picks in the 20s, but the thing is that if you do that, youre not getting market value, because clubs pay a premium to trade up. So ultimately that's my biggest criticism of the trade.

I do think you're over rating getting them a year earlier. These aren't blue chip stocks that you can be confident will definitely rise over time and thus the benefit of compound interest kicks in. They're specky stocks. They will do nothing for a couple of years and then will either boom or bust over the next couple. Extra time in our portfolio is worthless for the majority who bust.

The other factor is that we spoke about not being able to afford getting players across who wanted to come due to salary cap. If this was indeed part of our cap clearing strategy, why would you give up our most valuable trade chip for a below market price.

2 years

 

[sr36]

2 years

With one of the options - yes two years. If we ended up trading it for a player, you'd actually be gaining development time. but getting it sooner doesn't really matter to me - particularly with where I t hink the list is at. Waht matters to me is the likelihood of them sustaining an afl career.

 

[Apex36]

With one of the options - yes two years. If we ended up trading it for a player, you'd actually be gaining development time. but getting it sooner doesn't really matter to me - particularly with where I t hink the list is at. Waht matters to me is the likelihood of them sustaining an afl career.

It makes a huge difference with where our list is at imo. Given the age of Pendlebury/Sidey etc it could be the difference between a relatively quick resurgence and a complete bottom out in a few years.

 

[sr36]

It makes a huge difference with where our list is at imo. Given the age of Pendlebury/Sidey etc it could be the difference between a relatively quick resurgence and a complete bottom out in a few years.

Only if they make it - which is the point - you lower the chances of them making it by dropping down the draft order, which is why teams usually get a lot more back than we did. We wanted to trade up this year, but couldn't afford it - it usually costs a heap - unless you are GWS this year.

 

[Apex36]

Only if they make it - which is the point - you lower the chances of them making it by dropping down the draft order, which is why teams usually get a lot more back than we did. We wanted to trade up this year, but couldn't afford it - it costs a heap - unless you are GWS this year.

You could apply the only if they make it moniker to any draft pick. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush is a saying that applies heavily here imo, but you’re so hung up on pick numbers that we’ll never agree so let’s leave it there.
Also, no idea where you got the idea we wanted to trade up this draft. There’s never been any indication we were inclined to do that, especially given the only safe option to do so would have been to get the number 1 pick, which is a near impossible task in any draft.

 

[sr36]

You could apply the only if they make it moniker to any draft pick. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush is a saying that applies heavily here imo, but you’re so hung up on pick numbers that we’ll never agree so let’s leave it there.
Also, no idea where you got the idea we wanted to trade up this draft. There’s never been any indication we were inclined to do that, especially given the only safe option to do so would have been to get the number 1 pick, which is a near impossible task in any draft.

It was very widely reported that we wanted to trade up and I'm pretty sure that our boys actually said it

Maybe what we did was the right thing to do, but regardless, when you look at other trades, it's not how other club's value picks - we got below market value.

The bird in the hand saying doesn't apply for your point- it isn't about getting something earlier - it's that you may not get anything from the two in bush. If anything it is an argument against your point. - Eg. early picks are more likely to make it and are thus more akin to the bird in the hand - we traded our bird in the hand for two in the bush.

I'm not hung up on the pick numbers, personally, I think Collingwood are hung up on the points values - as that's the only way I think they could have justified a trade that was well below market value. This trade might end up working out - we just need a bit of luck with Poulter and/or McMahon, but it was still a poor trade.

 

[Apex36]

It was very widely reported that we wanted to trade up and I'm pretty sure that our boys actually said it

Maybe what we did was the right thing to do, but regardless, when you look at other trades, it's not how other club's value picks - we got below market value.

The bird in the hand saying doesn't apply for your point- it isn't about getting something earlier - it's that you may not get anything from the two in bush. If anything it is an argument against your point. - Eg. early picks are more likely to make it and are thus more akin to the bird in the hand - we traded our bird in the hand for two in the bush.

I'm not hung up on the pick numbers, personally, I think Collingwood are hung up on the points values - as that's the only way I think they could have justified a trade that was well below market value. This trade might end up working out - we just need a bit of luck with Poulter and/or McMahon, but it was still a poor trade.

It was widely reported we wanted to trade up last year, not this year.
I doubt points came in to the equation. More likely there were multiple players available still that our recruiters had inside the top 15 on their own board, so they pulled the trigger. They’re not concerned with pick numbers if a player(s) they rate highly is available. The only ones concerned with pick numbers are us mug punters on BF.
Anyway, as I said, we’re not going to agree, so time to drop it.

 

[sr36]

They’re not concerned with pick numbers if a player(s) they rate highly is available. The only ones concerned with pick numbers are us mug punters on BF.

I'll drop it once you stop throwing in new arguments.

They're concerned with pick number - what they might get at a pick number. Hence they do a heap of trading based on pick number.

Do you think what we got for our future first stands up against what they usually go for? Two middling picks in a draft everyone else was trading out of. If we've rated players well, it will be a win, but I still think we got dudded in the trade and should have got more future points back.

 

[jonmacTrag]

They're concerned with pick number - what they might get at a pick number. Hence they do a heap of trading based on pick number.

Do you think what we got for our future first stands up against what they usually go for? Two middling picks in a draft everyone else was trading out of. If we've rated players well, it will be a win, but I still think we got dudded in the trade and should have got more future points back.

Yes you've been quite insistent in your belief or guess.
I will wait until the proof is in one way or the other rather than casting doubt without evidence.

 

[sr36]

Yes you've been quite insistent in your belief or guess.
I will wait until the proof is in one way or the other rather than casting doubt without evidence.

You only seem to notice insistence when you disagree with the view.

And there will never be proof either way. You could trade pick 1for pick 30and 35 and have it turn out a win - such are the vagaries of the draft. But it'd still be a shit trade.

 

[Apex36]

I'll drop it once you stop throwing in new arguments.

They're concerned with pick number - what they might get at a pick number. Hence they do a heap of trading based on pick number.

Before the draft. Not during the draft when they know they have access to certain kids they rate on their draft board.
They’re not going to pass up the opportunity to grab a kid they rate as a first rounder just because he’s there at 30 ffs....

Do you think what we got for our future first stands up against what they usually go for? Two middling picks in a draft everyone else was trading out of. If we've rated players well, it will be a win, but I still think we got dudded in the trade and should have got more future points back.

I’m happy to back in the recruiters judgement on this. If McMahon and Poulter both turn in to the players they’re projecting to be right now, it will be talked about as an inspired move for the next decade.
Fwiw, not everyone was trading out of this draft. Geelong traded their future first to the Tigers for a pick in the early 20’s, which was arguably much worse value than what we got.

 

[Scodog10]

When looking at the trade. It may very well be that clubs would be better off trading a future pick 6-12 or so for two current picks in the 20s, but the thing is that if you do that, youre not getting market value, because clubs pay a premium to trade up. So ultimately that's my biggest criticism of the trade.

I do think you're over rating getting them a year earlier. These aren't blue chip stocks that you can be confident will definitely rise over time and thus the benefit of compound interest kicks in. They're specky stocks. They will do nothing for a couple of years and then will either boom or bust over the next couple. Extra time in our portfolio is worthless for the majority who bust.

The other factor is that we spoke about not being able to afford getting players across who wanted to come due to salary cap. If this was indeed part of our cap clearing strategy, why would you give up our most valuable trade chip for a below market price.

I know that’s your feel on my view of early development and the reverse is true that I’m reading your posts scratching my head thinking “how can someone with footy knowledge be so undervaluing time in the system” ultimately we’re probably reaching a point where the thrust of the topic is gone so perhaps we move on.

As to it not being part of our cap clearing strategy if you take on face value that we wanted to be in the 2020 draft then it makes sense. I think we’re going hard at FA’s with the knowledge that if the FA bid doesn’t go through we then have our 2022 1st plus players to work with to find currency. That’s where the club loses me though and we start projecting too far out. It could all be a smokescreen with the moves we made bringing us square with the ledger and post 2022 being the time we can actually go to market.

FWIW based on the list profile I’m beginning to lean toward 2022 as the year we cash in on a big name. That would have provided enough exposure to the 2020 draft class and my worry would be we go hard post 2021 without really knowing how good or bad the list is in the medium term. Ballsing that up could be catastrophic and turn us into one of those perpetually middle of the road clubs ala North under Brad Scott.

 

[sr36]

As to it not being part of our cap clearing strategy if you take on face value that we wanted to be in the 2020 draft then it makes sense. I think we’re going hard at FA’s with the knowledge that if the FA bid doesn’t go through we then have our 2022 1st plus players to work with to find currency. That’s where the club loses me though and we start projecting too far out. It could all be a smokescreen with the moves we made bringing us square with the ledger and post 2022 being the time we can actually go to market.

FWIW based on the list profile I’m beginning to lean toward 2022 as the year we cash in on a big name. That would have provided enough exposure to the 2020 draft class and my worry would be we go hard post 2021 without really knowing how good or bad the list is in the medium term. Ballsing that up could be catastrophic and turn us into one of those perpetually middle of the road clubs ala North under Brad Scott.

I'm with you on the uncertainty surrounding post 2021 season and it's one of the reasons why I'm so anti this trade and not really interested in the earlier development. We really just don't know where we are at, and with so many unexposed, I don't think the club itself can be confident either - with a crash being a definite possibility. Thus I'd be holding our chips in terms of recruitment and looking to maximise value in the future. To me the earlier development is only really significant for a team in contention who want the player to impact sooner - for teams in rebuild mode - which we may very well be very soon - you've just got to get those who are most likely to have a top career - regardless if they come on later. Hopefully we're not going into rebuild mode - but if we aren't, we'll need to recruit a quality ready to go mid next year - becasue we're bloody light on and can't expect this new batch to be quality as soon as 2022, in which case that pick would be very valuable. Either way I think that pick would have been much better still in our hands. But it's not doomsday and I've said too much about it already. It's the draft and we may end up with a big win from picks at every range. So here's to McMahon and Poulter- hopefully they smash it.

 

[ClaytonM]

Can those that have completely derailed this thread f*****f to the trade and draft thread and leave this one alone.

 

[sr36]

Fwiw, not everyone was trading out of this draft. Geelong traded their future first to the Tigers for a pick in the early 20’s, which was arguably much worse value than what we got.

Yeah, I think that will be viewed as a bad trade in the future. Clubs pay a bit of a tax for what you'd call an extra year of development and what I'd call instant gratification/impatience or short term thinking. I think they were projecting their future first to be a mid to late teens pick and thus it'd be about right if the drafts are equal when you factor in the have now tax, but personally, I think they overrated where they are likely to finish this year. I'm expecting a big fall down the ladder due to longer quarters, less rotations and faster footy. I think it'll expose an aging team with an aging and shallow midfield mix.

Ultimately, I'd like us to emulate what GWS do concerning future picks - trade them in, rather than trading them out, becasue I think you get better value that way and get to add some of the top kids. And yes I know that GWS are a big disappointment, but I put that down to drafting, player retention and coaching and not their clever trading of picks, which gives them access to a heap of highly rated kids.

 

[jonmacTrag]

You only seem to notice insistence when you disagree with the view.

And there will never be proof either way. You could trade pick 1for pick 30and 35 and have it turn out a win - such are the vagaries of the draft. But it'd still be a sh*t trade.

I only noticed because the view is constantly expressed in the Nick Daicos thread - a tenuous link at best.

 

[loki04]

That didn’t answer my question.

Any guy you and others are talking about v Poulter and McMahon is automatically behind purely because they aren’t getting the same exposure. It’s a fact whether you agree or not. What can be disputed is whether it’s enough to make up a PERCEIVED* talent gap? IDK and that’s where the discussion should fall.

All drafts from 2020-22 are going to be COVID drafts because recruiters start tracking 3 years out so anyone we take across those drafts is going to be behind “normal development” providing more value in developing them sooner. I also need to point out that if you’re talking about guys needing time in the system the ideal candidates as you pointed out would be McMahon and Poulter.

I want to stress that no matter my take I don’t believe there’s a right or wrong in the discussion of whether trading our 2021 1st round as right. This discussion for me is now more about establishing the benefits of the time value of money concept in regards to drafting.

*Ultimately what it boils down to is our perceptions on the outside. I think many would take the view that because they were drafted around 30 that’s where they sit in that drafts pecking order. Personally I don’t think it’s a stretch to ponder whether we rated Poulter and McMahon 10-15. It was a year out of the box so rankings would have been wildly different across the league. In a normal draft cycle your views would stack up a lot better, but there’s too much unknown around COVID and the impacts on the draft. I’m pretty confident we’ll look back in 2030 and go jeez there was gold late in that draft.

I don't disagree with you in most of that in terms of how the draft may pan out or the players coming on from it, but I do disagree that it was 100% savvy decision vs potentially holding on to it if we finish bot 5.

We finish anywhere out of that bottom 5 or 6 then I think they likely made the right call, even without the hindsight of if Poulter or McMahon come on (which i think both look likely good picks).

For mine it all comes back to where we finish up.

 

[DWil6]

Is he playing this weekend? Is there even a game?

 

[TradeDraft]

 

[MyManLynch]

Looks like Nick was barracking for Carlton...

 

[Piesinmyeyes]

Looks like Nick was barracking for Carlton...

Reminds me of Star Wars, whereby somebody’s having feelings of the dark side.
We need to employ Yoda.....

 

[ClaytonM]

Reminds me of Star Wars, whereby somebody’s having feelings of the dark side.
We need to employ Yoda.....

The good news is The Force is strong in this family. His father has it, his bother has it, and he has it.

 

[legendstatus]

Don’t panic - he can’t wait to put on the B&W, 100% !


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app