Recruiting Trade & Free Agency V

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe he has a trigger clause? Makes sense with the injury concerns he had when he was drafted.
Are we talking about Bird or Morgan? Morgan would've had a standard two-year draftee contract, regardless of his injury history. I would expect with the injury history that they would be putting more than two years into him before giving up though, if that's what you mean. Bird was traded in and *shrugs*
 
Are we talking about Bird or Morgan? Morgan would've had a standard two-year draftee contract, regardless of his injury history. I would expect with the injury history that they would be putting more than two years into him before giving up though, if that's what you mean. Bird was traded in and *shrugs*

I was meaning Bird. I seem to remember him having some injury concerns prior to coming to us. FWIW I think Bird stays on, as he was serviceable in Watson’s absence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Hey guys, a mate and i are keen to try and get a footy podcast up and going, we just uploaded the first ep and have based it around the trade period. Its our first attempt at anything like this but please have a look and enjoy :)

Sorry but our podcast quota on this board is full
 
Jerry-Seinfeld-No-Thanks-and-Leave.gif
 

Snake Charmer

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 11, 2011
7,201
4,526
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Minnesota Timberwolves

Kaiser Powser

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 2, 2007
6,079
3,137
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-09/bumper-draft-crop-for-2017-may-see-clubs-hold-their-picks

This article is pretty funny. Every year next years draft is a super draft/bumper crops of kids. I remember last years wasn't and it looks a beauty. So much can change with the kids from ages 17 to 18. It's a massive year in development. It's gonna be a long year of hearing how good next years draft is.

They could fair dinkum just change some the years and the kids surname and re print that article every year. My favourite bit:

"with clubs viewing next year's pool as stronger than this year, which many felt was talented at the top-end but dropped away."

Gee, that sounds familiar.
 

BrunoV

Brownlow Medallist
May 5, 2009
21,620
28,991
AFL Club
Essendon
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-09/bumper-draft-crop-for-2017-may-see-clubs-hold-their-picks

This article is pretty funny. Every year next years draft is a super draft/bumper crops of kids. I remember last years wasn't and it looks a beauty. So much can change with the kids from ages 17 to 18. It's a massive year in development. It's gonna be a long year of hearing how good next years draft is.



It's such a stupid comment in the context in which it is made. The depth of next year will be amazing because 20 odd kids have already shown that they are good players. It make no sense. By the time you get into the late 50 it's essentially stopped being 'best available' selections and becomes about taking projects to develop. Clubs will always be keeping tabs on individuals for these types of selections and the players who end up getting drafted have nothing to do with the previous year's assessment of the depth and quality of the next draft. We took 7 picks in 2015 which was weak and it is more likely than not to produce 5 100 - 200 game players and a rookie who will play 200 games. We took fewer players in the 2016 draft which was stronger.

Drafts are weak or strong with the benefit of hindsight only. 2001 is not amazing because of Judd and Hodge (while Ball could have been that good his body let him down and he has no right being in the same conversation as the other two) and certainly not because of the top 20. It's amazing because some superstars were taken in rounds 2 and 3 and a few father sons became stars as did some later picks and really good rookies.

Did they know it was going to be a good draft because all of these obscure players were going to be recruited? Of course not, if they did the clubs would have recruited these players in the top 20.
 
It's such a stupid comment in the context in which it is made. The depth of next year will be amazing because 20 odd kids have already shown that they are good players. It make no sense. By the time you get into the late 50 it's essentially stopped being 'best available' selections and becomes about taking projects to develop. Clubs will always be keeping tabs on individuals for these types of selections and the players who end up getting drafted have nothing to do with the previous year's assessment of the depth and quality of the next draft. We took 7 picks in 2015 which was weak and it is more likely than not to produce 5 100 - 200 game players and a rookie who will play 200 games. We took fewer players in the 2016 draft which was stronger.

Drafts are weak or strong with the benefit of hindsight only. 2001 is not amazing because of Judd and Hodge (while Ball could have been that good his body let him down and he has no right being in the same conversation as the other two) and certainly not because of the top 20. It's amazing because some superstars were taken in rounds 2 and 3 and a few father sons became stars as did some later picks and really good rookies.

Did they know it was going to be a good draft because all of these obscure players were going to be recruited? Of course not, if they did the clubs would have recruited these players in the top 20.
And that's why I always put 'super draft' in quotation marks.

Although it is probably fair to observe that a lot of clubs have traded out this years first and second round picks in favour of next years. Usually if they get out of the first round they'll maintain a presence in the second and vice versa, but this year there are a few clubs with late second and third round picks as their first picks in the draft (and not necessarily from bringing in players via trade either, they've just done pick trades to get next years picks instead). If next years draft turns out bad I guess they just repeat the process and get picks for the year after?
 
By the time you get into the late 50 it's essentially stopped being 'best available' selections and becomes about taking projects to develop. Clubs will always be keeping tabs on individuals for these types of selections and the players who end up getting drafted have nothing to do with the previous year's assessment of the depth and quality of the next draft.

293148-tlsnewsportrait.jpg
 
Drafts are weak or strong with the benefit of hindsight only.

Top post, but not sure about the above.

Don't you think clubs can make a reasonable assessment of the quality of the draft ahead of time?

For example, I heard a throwaway line that may or may not be true, but paraphrasing said 'there'd be five kids from the 2018 draft that would go number one if eligible this year'.

Or alternatively 'we think we can pick up a best available at pick 30 that could go on to play 100 games' versus, 'by the time we get to pick 30, we'll have switched to project players anyway'.

Ultimately you're right in terms of not being able to make grand statements about a draft until well after the fact (ie. the average number of games played by players in the '01 draft was x, versus '02 draft which was y), but surely clubs can make some fairly rational assessments ahead of time?
 
Jul 25, 2013
8,020
11,605
AFL Club
Essendon
They could fair dinkum just change some the years and the kids surname and re print that article every year. My favourite bit:

"with clubs viewing next year's pool as stronger than this year, which many felt was talented at the top-end but dropped away."

Gee, that sounds familiar.

I thought I was reading about next year’s draft till I got to the bottom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back