I'm not commenting on Marsh at all but I think this is a classic example of potentially ignoring the risk associated with drafting because the exposed deficiencies of an established player are more evident.
It is a lot harder to compare established players to draftees in terms of value. I mean, normally when you draft a player, it is because you've decided another player on your list isn't going to make it. It is a two step process: eg (1) is McKeever going to make it as a footballer? (2) If no, then who do we take in the draft? I see it as similar when considering trade targets who have an element of doubt except it is probably a slightly more convoluted process: (1) Is the trade target going to make it as a footballer in our side? (2) If yes, is the trade price we would need to pay a fair one, given the opportunity cost of giving something up (eg a draft pick)?
As outside observers, we can comment on whether Grant will make it as a footballer. We can probably even comment on his worth in terms of a trade price. But I think it is very difficult to compare him to a potential draftee. There are just too many unknowns - will Marsh be available when we have our pick, does the club rate Marsh etc. They are also recruited for two different purposes. Marsh would be seen as a long term option, the only reason to get Grant is to improve our side immediately.
I totally agree. But do you see Grant making an impact with our team immediately? He and Docherty are not like for like so who's spot is he taking? We have Paparone who has been brought in to play that leading HFF/WING role. We have Green and Zorko (and Banfield) as our crumbers/defensive forwards.
I'm far from ignoring the risk. And I'm not advocating drafting Marsh, I just can't see where either of these types of players would fit into our team. Grant seems reliant on a big FF bringing the ball to ground in order for him to be effective. He had his best season when Hall was at the dogs in 2010 kicking 29 goals as a long leading and then crumbing HFF/FP. He just hasn't got the grasp on FF leading, although he is quite good at long straight leading up to the wing and the HFF.
Grant hasn't been consistent enough in his time in the AFL to justify trading away a HBF/MID who was pick 12, 2 years ago who we took in a compromised draft after losing a KPF/RUCK who was a pick 9 years earlier.
I think I had a similar conversation with
cotter101 earlier in the year about Grant and I agree that he has the potential but bringing in a semi-established "will he or won't he make it" type at the expense of a previous or upcoming draftee then I'm not convinced that he will bring anything other than the mostly mediocre and sometimes solid to good games of football.
We've been burnt a bit by our apparent lack of development programs and I am hesitant to assume that Paparone will make it and be our next gun but I do see his potential over Grant and for that I feel brining in Grant will possibly stymie Papa's and others development.
I know we want some players traded in for immediate impact to cover our losses but I don't feel as though Grant is the one we need. This trade IMO should be for draft picks or another young mid with potential like Kane Lucas.