Yes, seriously
Why? I'm not sure even diehard West Coast fans think there'll be significant improvement sans Nic Nat.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, seriously
I'm not interested in your argument about nothing so don't bother tagging me in.Here's a list of players taken with pick 4 since the turn of the century:
2000: Luke Livingston
2001: Graham Polak
2002: Tim Walsh
2003: Farren Ray
2004: Richard Tambling
2005: Josh Kennedy
2006: Matthew Leuenberger
2007: Cale Morton
2008: Hamish Hartlett
2009: Anthony Morabito
2010: Andrew Gaff
2011: Will Hoskin-Elliott
2012: Jimmy Toumpas
2013: Marcus Bontempelli
2014: Jarrod Pickett
2015: Clayton Oliver
I count three top-liners in that list - Kennedy, Gaff and Bontempelli. Let's say four if you want to give Oliver the benefit of the doubt.
There are at least as many duds or distinctly mediocre players.
In light of this, clubs should be itching to trade pick 4 for a known quantity. Because history shows they are unlikely to get a top-liner with pick 4. They have maybe an 18-25 per cent chance. History shows they are much more likely to get a dud or a fringie. So clubs should just trade it.
Tell me cryptor, Abasi and QuietB, is that how it works? Based on this rationale, you would have happily traded pick 4 for Mitchell. Right? Because he'd be clearly better than most players taken with pick 4 in recent history. And, as you guys have explained, that's how you should assess the value of a draft pick.
OK. I inferred that you were interested when you responded to my post on the subject previously.I'm not interested in your argument about nothing so don't bother tagging me in.
Note that a lot of the players you've deemed as not being "top-liners" have gone to clubs who at the time had failed to develop many of their players (Melbourne unfortunately squandering a heap of first round picks). While the ones who reached your top-liner status have been at clubs who have been able to develop their players and get some success.Here's a list of players taken with pick 4 since the turn of the century:
2000: Luke Livingston
2001: Graham Polak
2002: Tim Walsh
2003: Farren Ray
2004: Richard Tambling
2005: Josh Kennedy
2006: Matthew Leuenberger
2007: Cale Morton
2008: Hamish Hartlett
2009: Anthony Morabito
2010: Andrew Gaff
2011: Will Hoskin-Elliott
2012: Jimmy Toumpas
2013: Marcus Bontempelli
2014: Jarrod Pickett
2015: Clayton Oliver
I count three top-liners in that list - Kennedy, Gaff and Bontempelli. Let's say four if you want to give Oliver the benefit of the doubt.
There are at least as many duds or distinctly mediocre players.
In light of this, clubs should be itching to trade pick 4 for a known quantity. Because history shows they are unlikely to get a top-liner with pick 4. They have maybe an 18-25 per cent chance. History shows they are much more likely to get a dud or a fringie. So clubs should just trade it.
Tell me cryptor, Abasi and QuietB, is that how it works? Based on this rationale, you would have happily traded pick 4 for Mitchell. Right? Because he'd be clearly better than most players taken with pick 4 in recent history. And, as you guys have explained, that's how you should assess the value of a draft pick.
Are you making excuses for your own rationale?Note that a lot of the players you've deemed as not being "top-liners" have gone to clubs who at the time had failed to develop many of their players (Melbourne unfortunately squandering a heap of first round picks). While the ones who reached your top-liner status have been at clubs who have been able to develop their players and get some success.
But, as we know, relatively few top-liners get selected with pick 4 so why would its "perceived value" be so high?So would I trade pick 4 for Mitchell? By that I assume you mean would I make that trade on behalf of my club? I wouldn't do a straight swap only because the perceived value of pick 4 is so high.
If you have to bend over backwards to insist that the rationale you laid out previously no longer applies, maybe your rationale was flawed in the first place.I would know I could get him from Sydney for a lot less (as Hawthorn were able to due to Sydney's abundance of midfield talent and salary cap pressure). Hawthorn right now also have the resources to make the most of pick 4, and it's these resources (onfield and off) that have allowed them to be so successful and not be in a position recently to be a struggling club that gets such a high pick and then not be able to turn it into a great player.
Pick 4 for Tom Mitchell. OK, if you say so.But if I were doing it on behalf of Gold Coast who in reality have pick 4 and if Sydney didn't have a reason to get rid of Mitchell and pick 4 is genuinely what it would take to do the deal, then yeah I would trade it for him.
Presumably the same goes for pick 1. It's really just a coin toss. I don't know why clubs would be so attached to it.Pick 4 could be some junior league superstar who then fails to translate his game to AFL level and has a body that it turns out can't stand the rigours of footy at the top level. He's young and impressionable and might get negatively influenced by his ratbag teammates and end up floundering before requesting a trade home 2 years later for nix in return. Or he might turn out to be better than Tom Mitchell after a few years of development. Even so I'd definitely take the known value in Mitchell over a maybe coin toss chance that pick 4 would land a player that might eventually end up being 20-30% better than him.
Why? I'm not sure even diehard West Coast fans think there'll be significant improvement sans Nic Nat.
When Murphy, Wallis, Redpath etc went down for the year for the Bulldogs everyone wrote them off.
It's a tough ask and even I'm skeptical we could challenge for a flag, but never say never in football.
It's almost like clubs are confident in themselves that they will draft the next Luke Hodge rather than Jack Watts with a top pick. How many clubs do you think get pick 4 and think "better trade this because we're unlikely to pick the right player and develop him properly"? They'll back themselves to get the best case scenario rather than settle for locking in something that may be a little less.Are you making excuses for your own rationale?
But, as we know, relatively few top-liners get selected with pick 4 so why would its "perceived value" be so high?
Surely clubs would just look at the list of players taken at pick 4 and conclude it's nothing to get excited about. Isn't that how it works?
I must have overlooked your treatise on the "perceived value" of pick 14. I thought it was simply a case of looking at a list of players selected with that pick previously and inferring the pick's value wholly and solely on that basis.
If you have to bend over backwards to insist that the rationale you laid out previously no longer applies, maybe your rationale was flawed in the first place.
Pick 4 for Tom Mitchell. OK, if you say so.
Presumably the same goes for pick 1. It's really just a coin toss. I don't know why clubs would be so attached to it.
All in all, it's amazing that clubs aren't in more of a hurry to trade out top 5 picks for "known values". I wonder why that's the case. It's almost as though they place a higher value on the opportunity early picks afford them.
West Coast did better without NicNat than with in 2016 didnt they?
So pick 4 is a coin toss but pick 1 isn't?It's almost like clubs are confident in themselves that they will draft the next Luke Hodge rather than Jack Watts with a top pick.
It's almost like they assess the value of the opportunity, rather than simply looking at the list of who was drafted there previously.How many clubs do you think get pick 4 and think "better trade this because we're unlikely to pick the right player and develop him properly"? They'll back themselves to get the best case scenario rather than settle for locking in something that may be a little less..
Words cannot express my disappointment.Anyway I suspect you're intentionally being obtuse now. Good work on coaxing me back but that's it now.
It's not all about one player. Yeah his good, but Hawthorn 2 premierships without Lance Franklin.Why? I'm not sure even diehard West Coast fans think there'll be significant improvement sans Nic Nat.
You can't say pick 14 is statistically 'no good' based on a small sample size of a small number of years.Grant Birchall was pick 14 in the 2005 draft. 11 drafts ago. I didn't exclude him to improve my point either. Was just going by the list posted a couple pages back. Including him still shows how difficult it is to pick a great player even with a high pick.
Apparently that's how you assess the value of a draft pick.You can't say pick 14 is statistically 'no good' based on a small sample size of a small number of years.
Yeah well this argument isn't about pick 14, not sure how it ended up there, but I had to chime in due to the stupidity off-the-wall remark. 2017 will be a 94 GF replay for me, with the margin that of 20-30 points.Apparently that's how you assess the value of a draft pick.
Sig best for the rest of the 2017 calendar year after the season is over.
Last night's grand final must have been nice21 games left to win your 15.
Still confident?
There's no nice way of saying it. The guy is an actual idiot.Anyone read the article by Malthouse saying Eagles taking Michell is a mistake and
Hawks getting rid of him was a good decision.
After round 1 Malthouse wrong on both accounts he has to be the most over rated 'expert' in AFL.
Our bet wasn't Hawthorn winning 15 games. It was Hawthorn beating Essendon, which didn't happen obviously. You own my signature and avatar until Easter Monday.21 games left to win your 15.
Still confident?
Anyone read the article by Malthouse saying Eagles taking Michell is a mistake and
Hawks getting rid of him was a good decision.
After round 1 Malthouse wrong on both accounts he has to be the most over rated 'expert' in AFL.
It's too early to tell. If West Coast can't win the flag while they have Mitchell then maybe it could be considered a mistake given it will have held back the development of a handful of young mids. But given the price they paid for him (or didn't pay as it were) then it would've been remiss of them not to take the risk. They've proven they've got the list to get there, and maybe Mitchell gets them over the line.Anyone read the article by Malthouse saying Eagles taking Michell is a mistake and
Hawks getting rid of him was a good decision.
After round 1 Malthouse wrong on both accounts he has to be the most over rated 'expert' in AFL.
retrospective agreement eh... like what you read or not. then you pull the boots on and have a shot yourself.There's no nice way of saying it. The guy is an actual idiot.