West Coast/Hawthorn - Who will do better in 2017?

Which Bird of Prey finishes higher next year


  • Total voters
    209
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
I'm not interested in your argument about nothing so don't bother tagging me in.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

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.
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.

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. 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.

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. Easy choice. Gold Coast need a good inside midfielder to replace O'Meara and Prestia. Tom Mitchell has been developed at a strong club and is a proven big game performer with very good to elite level stats and abilities. He's been fit the last couple years and if he remains that way he's easily got another 8-10 years of good footy ahead of him. 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.
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
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.
Are you making excuses for your own rationale?

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
Pick 4 for Tom Mitchell. OK, if you say so.

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.
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.
 
Last edited:

Bulldocker

Club Legend
Nov 22, 2010
1,324
1,341
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
WB,Claremont,Seahawks,Canucks
I think the Hawks and Eagles are in a bunch of clubs along with crows, cats, dockers and port who have just watched the future winning style pass them by this year and are all reloading. Port gave us a glimpse about four years ago of how slick, fast waves of ball movement is so hard to counter. For whatever reason, they fell away. But Bulldogs and GWS have nearly perfected it now. If you can get a quick, seamless transfer of the ball along with manic chase and tackle - it's bloody hard to keep it off them. Generally the hawks and eagles got found out by sheer pace this year in the games that counted in September - both offensively and defensively. They will both be around top six again but probably not realistically expecting a flag chance for a couple more years. I reckon Saints will be the big ladder climbers this year because they have now assembled a group nearest in quality to bullies, gws and swans in the skill/pace department.
 
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.
 
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.
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.

Anyway I suspect you're intentionally being obtuse now. Good work on coaxing me back but that's it now.
 
West Coast did better without NicNat than with in 2016 didnt they?

We did thump Adelaide on the road which I didn't think we were capable of.

Having Mitchell back will help to ease the loss as well.
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
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.
So pick 4 is a coin toss but pick 1 isn't?

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..
It's almost like they assess the value of the opportunity, rather than simply looking at the list of who was drafted there previously.

Yeah, fancy that.

Anyway I suspect you're intentionally being obtuse now. Good work on coaxing me back but that's it now.
Words cannot express my disappointment.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Apr 18, 2005
30,892
26,644
AFL Club
Melbourne
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.
You can't say pick 14 is statistically 'no good' based on a small sample size of a small number of years.
 

Killer Kowalski

Team Captain
Mar 25, 2017
344
318
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
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.
 
21 games left to win your 15.

Still confident?
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.
 
Jul 12, 2011
33,642
24,449
Melbourne
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Eagles, Lakers, Bayern, Trojans
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.
61138904.jpg
 
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.

As for Hawthorn letting him go... I doubt it would've changed the result last night.
 

Leeda

Talents B Sharp
Suspended
Sep 26, 2012
9,443
1,622
AFL Club
Hawthorn
There's no nice way of saying it. The guy is an actual idiot.
retrospective agreement eh... like what you read or not. then you pull the boots on and have a shot yourself.

of course a win means that you have pumping power and then you drive the bus as well.

call me in ten weeks time and then we'll have a real argument.
 
Back