Player Value & Draft

[Alex99]

Bloody hell. It's an internet forum. It's your choice what you do.

If you don't want to read what people post, don't. Its that bloody simply. You can make the choice to just scroll past, read what has been written and laugh behind your own key board or ignore them.

Shouldn't need to ignore someone as we should be able to have a mature dicussion without the childish insults and underhanded negative comments towards someone, and YES!!!! everyoneis just as bad as everyoner else. If you have posted over 500 times within a reasonable amount of time - you are guilty. IMO the moderators should stick to the rules and remove all the bullying that goes on and remove any post that breaks the rules. However, this doesn't happen as personalities, friendships and reputations get in the way with many posters getting more leeway than others and that can influence those decisions. Fairness and equality towards everyone is needed. Black and white and remove all gray area.

If you don't believe the rumours, that's your prerogative but having page after page of big noting yourself by saying he/she is this, he/she is that is just a bad. That isn't any differebnt to the alleged trolling going on by saying a traded rumour. The bullying and group think that goes on in this forum is horrible. Anyone who has an alternative opinion gets bullied into changing their mind to the point where they are ridiculed and taunted by certain posters until they stop posting or join the idiocy towards the group think. It's horrible and happenes almost everyday.

Perfect example - I was discussing the Kerridge trade. My stance was, his value was between 25 and 30. I was bullied into shutting up about it as the 'group think' didn't rate him and bullied their way into thinking his vaue wa over 45. They make you change your mind and kept going a with childish retorts and immature bullshit. Why should we even report it when nothing in done?

Guess what happened? Kerridge was traded yesterday for 2nd year player drafted at pick 11. The market place spoke, his value was placed at about pick 25 to 30.

Yet, no one took any time to apologise or even admit they are wrong.

 

[Vader]

Bloody hell. It's an internet forum. It's your choice what you do.

If you don't want to read what people post, don't. Its that bloody simply. You can make the choice to just scroll past, read what has been written and laugh behind your own key board or ignore them.

Shouldn't need to ignore someone as we should be able to have a mature dicussion without the childish insults and underhanded negative comments towards someone, and YES!!!! everyoneis just as bad as everyoner else. If you have posted over 500 times within a reasonable amount of time - you are guilty. IMO the moderators should stick to the rules and remove all the bullying that goes on and remove any post that breaks the rules. However, this doesn't happen as personalities, friendships and reputations get in the way with many posters getting more leeway than others and that can influence those decisions. Fairness and equality towards everyone is needed. Black and white and remove all gray area.

If you don't believe the rumours, that's your prerogative but having page after page of big noting yourself by saying he/she is this, he/she is that is just a bad. That isn't any differebnt to the alleged trolling going on by saying a traded rumour. The bullying and group think that goes on in this forum is horrible. Anyone who has an alternative opinion gets bullied into changing their mind to the point where they are ridiculed and taunted by certain posters until they stop posting or join the idiocy towards the group think. It's horrible and happenes almost everyday.

Perfect example - I was discussing the Kerridge trade. My stance was, his value was between 25 and 30. I was bullied into shutting up about it as the 'group think' didn't rate him and bullied their way into thinking his vaue wa over 45. They make you change your mind and kept going a with childish retorts and immature bullshit. Why should we even report it when nothing in done?

Guess what happened? Kerridge was traded yesterday for 2nd year player drafted at pick 11. The market place spoke, his value was placed at about pick 25 to 30.

Yet, no one took any time to apologise or even admit they are wrong.

Wait, you think that trade actually justifies your position? That's almost as silly as your original assertion.

Let's do the maths...
Menzel was originally drafted at pick #11 in 2012. That would make his points value 1268.
He was traded for Kerridge & pick #28. The value of pick #28 is 677. This would make the value of Kerridge 591, which is equivalent to pick 31-32.

We're already outside the range of 25-30 that you originally specified, but only just.

However, your fundamental assumption is that Menzel trade value in 2015 is still the pick #11 that Carlton originally used to draft him. Given that he has performed poorly to date, relative to his potential & talent, and Carlton's eagerness to offload him, it's very hard to accept that this is actually the case. His value in 2015, even allowing for a weaker draft, is definitely below his original #11 selection. There's a solid argument to be made that his perceived value may have slipped as low as pick #20.

Now, if we re-value Menzel at pick #20, his points value becomes 912. Kerridge's value then becomes 235, which equates to pick 52-53. That's probably lower than I would have valued him (noting that I previously stated 40+).

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, which still makes my 40+ valuation look better than your 25-30 valuation.

So, let's reverse engineer this. Let's start by assuming that Kerridge's value is around pick 42 (I did say 40+). That equates to 395 points. Throw in pick #28 and Menzel's revised value is 1072 points. This equates to pick #17, which seems like a very reasonable valuation.

So, when are you going to apologise and admit that you were wrong?

 

[Alex99]

Wait, you think that trade actually justifies your position? That's almost as silly as your original assertion.

Let's do the maths...
Menzel was originally drafted at pick #11 in 2012. That would make his points value 1268.
He was traded for Kerridge & pick #28. The value of pick #28 is 677. This would make the value of Kerridge 591, which is equivalent to pick 31-32.

We're already outside the range of 25-30 that you originally specified, but only just.

However, your fundamental assumption is that Menzel trade value in 2015 is still the pick #11 that Carlton originally used to draft him. Given that he has performed poorly to date, relative to his potential & talent, and Carlton's willingness to give him up, it's very hard to accept that this is actually the case. His value in 2015, even allowing for a weaker draft, is definitely below his original #11 selection. There's a solid argument to be made that his perceived value may have slipped as low as pick #20.

Now, if we re-value Menzel at pick #20, his points value becomes 912. Kerridge's value then becomes 235, which equates to pick 52-53. That's probably lower than I would have valued him (noting that I previously stated 40+).

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, which still makes my 40+ valuation look better than your 25-30 valuation.

So, let's reverse engineer this. Let's start by assuming that Kerridge's value is around pick 42 (I did say 40+). That equates to 395 points. Throw in pick #28 and Menzel's revised value is 1072 points. This equates to pick #17, which seems like a very reasonable valuation.

So, when are you going to apologise and admit that you were wrong?

Far side closer than pick 40 plus.

 

[Vader]

Far side closer than pick 40 plus.

If his trade value remained the same as his original drafting position... which is a patently absurd assumption to be making.

 

[Pdub]

Wait, you think that trade actually justifies your position? That's almost as silly as your original assertion.

Let's do the maths...
Menzel was originally drafted at pick #11 in 2012. That would make his points value 1268.
He was traded for Kerridge & pick #28. The value of pick #28 is 677. This would make the value of Kerridge 591, which is equivalent to pick 31-32.

We're already outside the range of 25-30 that you originally specified, but only just.

However, your fundamental assumption is that Menzel trade value in 2015 is still the pick #11 that Carlton originally used to draft him. Given that he has performed poorly to date, relative to his potential & talent, and Carlton's eagerness to offload him, it's very hard to accept that this is actually the case. His value in 2015, even allowing for a weaker draft, is definitely below his original #11 selection. There's a solid argument to be made that his perceived value may have slipped as low as pick #20.

Now, if we re-value Menzel at pick #20, his points value becomes 912. Kerridge's value then becomes 235, which equates to pick 52-53. That's probably lower than I would have valued him (noting that I previously stated 40+).

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, which still makes my 40+ valuation look better than your 25-30 valuation.

So, let's reverse engineer this. Let's start by assuming that Kerridge's value is around pick 42 (I did say 40+). That equates to 395 points. Throw in pick #28 and Menzel's revised value is 1072 points. This equates to pick #17, which seems like a very reasonable valuation.

So, when are you going to apologise and admit that you were wrong?

Kerridge is not worth pick 40, he was offered a 3-year contract, no-one would ever offer an unproven pick 40 in the draft a 3-year contract.

 

[Alex99]

Now, if we re-value Menzel at pick #20, his points value becomes 912. Kerridge's value then becomes 235, which equates to pick 52-53. That's probably lower than I would have valued him (noting that I previously stated 40+).

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, which still makes my 40+ valuation look better than your 25-30 valuation.

So, let's reverse engineer this. Let's start by assuming that Kerridge's value is around pick 42 (I did say 40+). That equates to 395 points. Throw in pick #28 and Menzel's revised value is 1072 points. This equates to pick #17, which seems like a very reasonable valuation.

So, when are you going to apologise and admit that you were wrong?

You can not arbitrarily change his draft postion to suit your own arguemernt.

You cannot just say, the AFL market valued him at this point but I really believe his new position at this new point is here.

The AFL market put him at 11 two years ago. Then yesterday, they postioned him at 1268 ~ pick 31/32 in your own assessment.

How can you justify saying his draft position has changed when you have no supporting data. The data collected, the trade by Adelaide and Carltion supported my position. You are going by your own assessment. Thats like going intio a bank and saying, I want $200 us dollars for $200 Aus dollars when thye market doesn't support that value.

You don't have any quantitative data to support or justify your market shift.

You said, no one would trade him for that value - they did.

 

[Vader]

Kerridge is not worth pick 40, he was offered a 3-year contract, no-one would ever offer an unproven pick 40 in the draft a 3-year contract.

Carlton are desperate. This is virtually a repeat of their 2001 trading period, when they brought in such luminaries as Andrew Eccles, David Gallagher, Corey McKernan, Justin Murphy, and Lindsay Smith. Back then they were filling gaps created by the retirement of many of their 1995 premiership players, whilst being unable to access the 1st & 2nd rounds of the draft due to the penalties they received for breaching the salary cap.

Today, they have a whole lot of dud players on their list, and they're desperate to to turn over as much of their list as they can, as quickly as possible. Every player out has to be replaced by a player coming in, and this year's draft isn't particularly deep, so they're trading for players left, right and centre. It doesn't seem to matter to them that most of the players they're getting just aren't terribly good (which is why their existing clubs are willing to part with them for such a low price).

Ordinarily, I would probably agree with you. But not in the case of Carlton 2015.

 

[Alex99]

If his trade value remained the same as his original drafting position... which is a patently absurd assumption to be making.

You can not change that.

You can not use the AFL market as direct evidence to support your arguement prior to the trade and then ignore that same direct evidence after the trade.

They have to remain the same as that is market evidence by those who do this job.

 

[Pdub]

Carlton are desperate. This is virtually a repeat of their 2001 trading period, when they brought in such luminaries as Andrew Eccles, David Gallagher, Corey McKernan, Justin Murphy, and Lindsay Smith. Back then they were filling gaps created by the retirement of many of their 1995 premiership players, whilst being unable to access the 1st & 2nd rounds of the draft due to the penalties they received for breaching the salary cap.

Today, they have a whole lot of dud players on their list, and they're desperate to to turn over as much of their list as they can, as quickly as possible. Every player out has to be replaced by a player coming in, and this year's draft isn't particularly deep, so they're trading for players left, right and centre. It doesn't seem to matter to them that most of the players they're getting just aren't terribly good (which is why their existing clubs are willing to part with them for such a low price).

Ordinarily, I would probably agree with you. But not in the case of Carlton 2015.

The value of a product is what someone is willing to pay for it, doesn't matter their circumstances.

Roughly I see it like,

5 year contract, big money = top 5 pick
5 year contract, average money = top 10 pick
4 year contract = top 20 pick
3 year contract = top 30 pick

 

[Alex99]

Carlton are desperate. This is virtually a repeat of their 2001 trading period, when they brought in such luminaries as Andrew Eccles, David Gallagher, Corey McKernan, Justin Murphy, and Lindsay Smith. Back then they were filling gaps created by the retirement of many of their 1995 premiership players, whilst being unable to access the 1st & 2nd rounds of the draft due to the penalties they received for breaching the salary cap.

Today, they have a whole lot of dud players on their list, and they're desperate to to turn over as much of their list as they can, as quickly as possible. Every player out has to be replaced by a player coming in, and this year's draft isn't particularly deep, so they're trading for players left, right and centre. It doesn't seem to matter to them that most of the players they're getting just aren't terribly good (which is why their existing clubs are willing to part with them for such a low price).

Ordinarily, I would probably agree with you. But not in the case of Carlton 2015.

But they are the buyer, therefore - they have the ablity to set the market value.

"something is only worth, what someone is willing to pay for it"

If they are willing to pay it, that becomes his market value.

 

[Vader]

You can not arbitrarily change his draft postion to suit your own arguemernt.

You cannot just say, the AFL market valued him at this point but I really believe his new position at this new point is here.

The AFL market put him at 11 two years ago. Then yesterday, they postioned him at 1268 ~ pick 31/32 in your own assessment.

How can you justify saying his draft position has changed when you have no supporting data. The data collected, the trade by Adelaide and Carltion supported my position. You are going by your own assessment. Thats like going intio a bank and saying, I want $200 us dollars for $200 Aus dollars when thye market doesn't support that value.

You don't have any quantitative data to support or justify your market shift.

You said, no one would trade him for that value - they did.

I can't change the value that he was assigned 3 years ago, but it's patently absurd to state that a player's value doesn't change from the day that they are drafted. If that were the case then Nat Fyfe's value would still be #20, when he's currently the #1 player in the AFL. Menzel's value was pick #11 in 2012, in 2015 it's considerably less than that.

Actually, I like your banking comparison. If I bought US$200 3 years ago, I would have paid around $190 (give or take), as the Australian dollar was briefly above parity with the US dollar. If I bought US$200 today, I would have to pay around $290, because the Australian dollar is now only worth around 70c US. The Australian dollar has fallen from around 108c to 70c when compared to the US dollar. The same thing has happened with Menzel's value - he's depreciated, having not lived up to the expectations of a #11 draftee.

Players' trade values don't remain constant. A new draftee might, arguably, hold their original value for 1-2 years. After that their valuation becomes increasingly based on their actual performance, and less on the potential they showed as a junior. Some players will rise in value, because they perform better than their original draft position indicated (eg. Nat Fyfe). Some players will fall in value, because they fail to perform to the level expected of them. Menzel falls into the latter category.

How can I state that with confidence? Because it makes a damn sight more sense than your ludicrous suggestion that he has maintained his 2012 valuation, despite having performed poorly in the interval. How can you justify your argument that his value hasn't decreased in the intervening 3 years?

 

[Vader]

You can not change that.

You can not use the AFL market as direct evidence to support your arguement prior to the trade and then ignore that same direct evidence after the trade.

They have to remain the same as that is market evidence by those who do this job.

But there is no direct evidence after the trade. If anything, the post-trade evidence points towards a lower valuation.

His value in 2012 is fixed. His value in 2015 is not fixed, and is definitely not the same as it was in 2012.

 

[Alex99]

I can't change the value that he was assigned 3 years ago, but it's patently absurd to state that a player's value doesn't change from the day that they are drafted. If that were the case then Nat Fyfe's value would still be #20, when he's currently the #1 player in the AFL. Menzel's value was pick #11 in 2012, in 2015 it's considerably less than that.

Actually, I like your banking comparison. If I bought US$200 3 years ago, I would have paid around $190 (give or take), as the Australian dollar was briefly above parity with the US dollar. If I bought US$200 today, I would have to pay around $290, because the Australian dollar is now only worth around 70c US. The Australian dollar has fallen from around 108c to 70c when compared to the US dollar. The same thing has happened with Menzel's value - he's depreciated, having not lived up to the expectations of a #11 draftee.

Players' trade values don't remain constant. A new draftee might, arguably, hold their original value for 1-2 years. After that their valuation becomes increasingly based on their actual performance, and less on the potential they showed as a junior. Some players will rise in value, because they perform better than their original draft position indicated (eg. Nat Fyfe). Some players will fall in value, because they fail to perform to the level expected of them. Menzel falls into the latter category.

How can I state that with confidence? Because it makes a damn sight more sense than your ludicrous suggestion that he has maintained his 2012 valuation, despite having performed poorly in the interval. How can you justify your argument that his value hasn't decreased in the intervening 3 years?

You could do that, if you could find some supporting evidence to show his value has dropped. The Aust currency index supports the value of your monetary shift.

However, can not show me a "professional" who support your trade decrease.

 

[Vader]

The value of a product is what someone is willing to pay for it, doesn't matter their circumstances.

Roughly I see it like,

5 year contract, big money = top 5 pick
5 year contract, average money = top 10 pick
4 year contract = top 20 pick
3 year contract = top 30 pick

Carlton are desperate.. Really desperate. The fact that they've offered Kerridge a 3-year contract shows just how desperate they are.

Adelaide used 32 players this year. Kerride stands out as the only one of those 32 who was never actually selected in the starting 22. Even if we rate him ahead of Sam Shaw (who was only selected twice), that still makes him the 31st ranked player on our team list this year. There is no way that a player who is the 31st ranked on our team list, and doesn't get selected for a single game, is worth a pick inside the top-30.

** Even if you exclude Martin & Wright, who are either delisted or soon will be, he's still only the 29th best - and still wasn't selected for a single game.

 

[Alex99]

But there is no direct evidence after the trade. If anything, the post-trade evidence points towards a lower valuation.

His value in 2012 is fixed. His value in 2015 is not fixed, and is definitely not the same as it was in 2012.

Says who? you

We are not experts, so we can only deal in concrete facts. If you are suggesting, we can ignore concrete facts and simply use "gut feel", this becomes irrelevant as I would have been happy to pay between 25 and 30 where as you wouldn't.

The concrete facts can not change unless you can add some new data that supports your shift in draft position.

 

[Vader]

But they are the buyer, therefore - they have the ablity to set the market value.

"something is only worth, what someone is willing to pay for it"

If they are willing to pay it, that becomes his market value.

And Adelaide are the buyers of Menzel. If we valued him as pick #17, then that's his value too - and hence Kerridge's value is 40+.

We may actually both be right...
Adelaide may well have valued Menzel at 17, and Kerridge at 40+, with Carlton rating them at 11 and 32. There's nothing in this deal to say that both clubs valued the players equally. All we know is that both clubs agreed Menzel = Kerridge + 28.

 

[Vader]

Says who? you

We are not experts, so we can only deal in concrete facts. If you are suggesting, we can ignore concrete facts and simply use "gut feel", this becomes irrelevant as I would have been happy to pay between 25 and 30 where as you wouldn't.

The concrete facts can not change unless you can add some new data that supports your shift in draft position.

The problem is that neither of us can prove our assertions. There is only one fixed data point, and that's 3 years old. If the deal had been done for picks alone, then we would be able to establish a new fixed point. Unfortunately, the deal was player = player + pick. All we can categorically state is that Menzel's value is still < 28. How much lower, is more than a little bit arbitrary.

 

[hendo8888]

The problem is that neither of us can prove our assertions. There is only one fixed data point, and that's 3 years old. If the deal had been done for picks alone, then we would be able to establish a new fixed point. Unfortunately, the deal was player = player + pick. All we can categorically state is that Menzel's value is still < 28. How much lower, is more than a little bit arbitrary.

The fixed value reference that we have is that Menzel is worth 677 points more than Kerridge.
I definitely wouldn't have paid our pick 9 for him in a straight swap (which would value him at pick 24). I also would feel we slightly overpaid with our pick 13, but wouldn't be too unhappy with it. So putting him in the slightly below pick 13 valuation, that would put Kerridge's value in the mid 30s or higher. Roughly in the middle of both of your valuations. Which I think is about fair.

 

[Vader]

This line of thought came out of the Menzel/Kerridge argument with crows98, but that argument is now settled and I don't want to go back to it.

At what point does a player's value cease being determined by his original draft position, becoming based more on his level of performance in the AFL?

Firstly, consider Menzel. Carlton and Adelaide agreed yesterday on a deal that established Menzel = Kerridge + 28. That establishes Menzel's value somewhere in the 11-20 range (and I don't want to re-start that argument again) in a weak draft. Given that he was originally selected with pick #11 in the 2012 draft (3 years ago), his value hasn't slipped dramatically. Menzel really hasn't done a whole lot in those 3 years, averaging just 8.7 disposals per game over 41 AFL games. The potential/talent is clearly there, but to date he hasn't lived up to it. Frankly, I think it's a miracle his value has remained as high as it has.

Secondly, consider Aish. He was originally selected by Brisbane with pick #7 in the 2013 draft. His 2015 was a year to forget, a clear case of the 2nd year blues (and possibly a lack of motivation driven by a desire to be anywhere but Brisbane). His 2014, on the other hand, was excellent. He was rewarded for his performances by a 2nd place finish in the Rising Star voting. His value should have fallen slightly in 2015, but not that much - I'd still give up our pick #13 for him, if he were available. For all that, Brisbane don't look like getting anywhere near the value of the pick they originally selected him with.

So.. the 3 year player with no runs on the board (almost) maintains his draft value, but the 2 year player who has demonstrated an AFL level of performance has apparently fallen dramatically. Go figure...

How long do players retain their original draft position value? What makes clubs think that way, when the player doesn't have any runs on the board?

Any thoughts? Suggestions? Comments?

 

[hendo8888]

This line of thought came out of the Menzel/Kerridge argument with crows98, but that argument is now settled and I don't want to go back to it.

At what point does a player's value cease being determined by his original draft position, becoming based more on his level of performance in the AFL?

Firstly, consider Menzel. Carlton and Adelaide agreed yesterday on a deal that established Menzel = Kerridge + 28. That establishes Menzel's value somewhere in the 11-20 range (and I don't want to re-start that argument again) in a weak draft. Given that he was originally selected with pick #11 in the 2012 draft (3 years ago), his value hasn't slipped dramatically. Menzel really hasn't done a whole lot in those 3 years, averaging just 8.7 disposals per game over 41 AFL games. The potential/talent is clearly there, but to date he hasn't lived up to it. Frankly, I think it's a miracle his value has remained as high as it has.

Secondly, consider Aish. He was originally selected by Brisbane with pick #7 in the 2013 draft. His 2015 was a year to forget, a clear case of the 2nd year blues (and possibly a lack of motivation driven by a desire to be anywhere but Brisbane). His 2014, on the other hand, was excellent. He was rewarded for his performances by a 2nd place finish in the Rising Star voting. His value should have fallen slightly in 2015, but not that much - I'd still give up our pick #13 for him, if he were available. For all that, Brisbane don't look like getting anywhere near the value of the pick they originally selected him with.

So.. the 3 year player with no runs on the board (almost) maintains his draft value, but the 2 year player who has demonstrated an AFL level of performance has apparently fallen dramatically. Go figure...

How long do players retain their original draft position value? What makes clubs think that way, when the player doesn't have any runs on the board?

Any thoughts? Suggestions? Comments?

After their first training session.

 

[Paladin]

I can't change the value that he was assigned 3 years ago, but it's patently absurd to state that a player's value doesn't change from the day that they are drafted. If that were the case then Nat Fyfe's value would still be #20, when he's currently the #1 player in the AFL. Menzel's value was pick #11 in 2012, in 2015 it's considerably less than that.

Actually, I like your banking comparison. If I bought US$200 3 years ago, I would have paid around $190 (give or take), as the Australian dollar was briefly above parity with the US dollar. If I bought US$200 today, I would have to pay around $290, because the Australian dollar is now only worth around 70c US. The Australian dollar has fallen from around 108c to 70c when compared to the US dollar. The same thing has happened with Menzel's value - he's depreciated, having not lived up to the expectations of a #11 draftee.

Players' trade values don't remain constant. A new draftee might, arguably, hold their original value for 1-2 years. After that their valuation becomes increasingly based on their actual performance, and less on the potential they showed as a junior. Some players will rise in value, because they perform better than their original draft position indicated (eg. Nat Fyfe). Some players will fall in value, because they fail to perform to the level expected of them. Menzel falls into the latter category.

How can I state that with confidence? Because it makes a damn sight more sense than your ludicrous suggestion that he has maintained his 2012 valuation, despite having performed poorly in the interval. How can you justify your argument that his value hasn't decreased in the intervening 3 years?

Wait what are you saying Menzel has performed poorly?

His first 2 years were excellent, just struggled this year with injury. Still worth plenty! Around pick 11 easily

 

[Vader]

Wait what are you saying Menzel has performed poorly?

His first 2 years were excellent, just struggled this year with injury. Still worth plenty! Around pick 11 easily

You set a very low bar for "excellent". Menzel's value is still very much based on talent/potential. That potential has, to date, remained largely unrealised. He has very few runs on the board, too few to justify a #11 valuation on the basis of performance alone.

 

[Sanders]

You could do that, if you could find some supporting evidence to show his value has dropped. The Aust currency index supports the value of your monetary shift.

However, can not show me a "professional" who support your trade decrease.

I don't think anyone can argue he has held value, he has not lived up to his potential so far

 

[Brentmeister]

Wait, you think that trade actually justifies your position? That's almost as silly as your original assertion.

Let's do the maths...
Menzel was originally drafted at pick #11 in 2012. That would make his points value 1268.
He was traded for Kerridge & pick #28. The value of pick #28 is 677. This would make the value of Kerridge 591, which is equivalent to pick 31-32.

We're already outside the range of 25-30 that you originally specified, but only just.

However, your fundamental assumption is that Menzel trade value in 2015 is still the pick #11 that Carlton originally used to draft him. Given that he has performed poorly to date, relative to his potential & talent, and Carlton's eagerness to offload him, it's very hard to accept that this is actually the case. His value in 2015, even allowing for a weaker draft, is definitely below his original #11 selection. There's a solid argument to be made that his perceived value may have slipped as low as pick #20.

Now, if we re-value Menzel at pick #20, his points value becomes 912. Kerridge's value then becomes 235, which equates to pick 52-53. That's probably lower than I would have valued him (noting that I previously stated 40+).

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, which still makes my 40+ valuation look better than your 25-30 valuation.

So, let's reverse engineer this. Let's start by assuming that Kerridge's value is around pick 42 (I did say 40+). That equates to 395 points. Throw in pick #28 and Menzel's revised value is 1072 points. This equates to pick #17, which seems like a very reasonable valuation.

So, when are you going to apologise and admit that you were wrong?

R E K T

 

[Mego Red]

Wait, you think that trade actually justifies your position? That's almost as silly as your original assertion.

Let's do the maths...
Menzel was originally drafted at pick #11 in 2012. That would make his points value 1268.
He was traded for Kerridge & pick #28. The value of pick #28 is 677. This would make the value of Kerridge 591, which is equivalent to pick 31-32.

We're already outside the range of 25-30 that you originally specified, but only just.

However, your fundamental assumption is that Menzel trade value in 2015 is still the pick #11 that Carlton originally used to draft him. Given that he has performed poorly to date, relative to his potential & talent, and Carlton's eagerness to offload him, it's very hard to accept that this is actually the case. His value in 2015, even allowing for a weaker draft, is definitely below his original #11 selection. There's a solid argument to be made that his perceived value may have slipped as low as pick #20.

Now, if we re-value Menzel at pick #20, his points value becomes 912. Kerridge's value then becomes 235, which equates to pick 52-53. That's probably lower than I would have valued him (noting that I previously stated 40+).

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, which still makes my 40+ valuation look better than your 25-30 valuation.

So, let's reverse engineer this. Let's start by assuming that Kerridge's value is around pick 42 (I did say 40+). That equates to 395 points. Throw in pick #28 and Menzel's revised value is 1072 points. This equates to pick #17, which seems like a very reasonable valuation.

So, when are you going to apologise and admit that you were wrong?

We're not going to start using points like they're an even remotely accurate measuring of pick worth, are we?

If they were, there wouldn't have been this mass trading of picks, with clubs that wanted POINTS moving down and clubs that wanted PICKS moving up. Clearly, the lower picks have been overvalued.